CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
But he won the prize because the people who think he deseved it believe in his potential. He has the drive and the ability to bring peace to a lot of the countries now in turmoil.
Fox news said that he won the Nobel on the basis that he's "not Bush." Well he isn't. His emobodyment of everything anti-Bush sent an imidiate calming over the earth. The simple act of him being our president was proof of hope to those inside and outside of the US.
He was President for all of a month when he was nominated for the prize. People should be selected for awards for what they do and not what they intend to do or who they are. This just proves that the Nobel peace prize is a joke.
The Nobel Prize (Swedish: Nobelpriset) is an annual, international award originating in Sweden. The award was established in 1895 by the Swedish chemist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Bernhard Nobel.
And your evidence for this rather lofty claim is what exactly? How are these inspired people demonstrating that they are more oriented toward peace than a year ago? It would be nice for someone to offer at least one, and maybe only one, demonstrable difference in world peace since President Obama was elected.
So, for example, have the Taliban been so inspired by the election that they are at least thinking about toning down their violence? Have the Iranians been inspired to hold something like a fair election? How is Darfur these days...has there been an inspirational movement there?
Having a warm fuzzy feeling because someone has been elected president, shouldn't be the standard-bearer of what constitutes the bringing about of peace, or even constitute the "effort" of bringing about peace.
I by no means mean to belittle a heroic holocaust survivor, and I don't know the details of what he may have gone through, but given the same situation any decent person would save children. That's a given. It's not a global act or lifelong dedication to peace.
Gore works to save all of humanity, and all of the planet.
I know that your heart is in the right place but there is absolutely nothing that Gore (or anyone else for that matter) can do to reverse Global Warming in a reasonable amount of time. It is just not economically feasible. Not for us, not for the Indians, and not for the Chinese.
Global warming won't destroy the earth. It will destroy us.
The earth has a lifespan just like we do. Someday the sun will die, or the moon will snap from orbit, or a black hole will pass by... That's what will destroy the earth.
The cure for Climate Change is the death of the human race. After that the ecosystem will return to a livable state over a period of time.
So you can either keep up with that attitude, or trust in the power of the Human will to find a solution.
Either way you die. So just keep driving that hummer, but now youre paying the Chinese for it.
I downvoted you without responding because your post was nothing more than a more detailed repost of your previous statment. It was as if you hadnt read my post at all.
First, calling people names will do nothing to further your arguments.
"He isn't green since his house consumes more energy than Nebraska... and he himself consumes more energy than Nebraska WITHOUT the house."
Wrong. Al Gore's house is powered by either local, renewable means at his own house or through green, renewable energy that he purchases at a premium with his own money. When you are getting your energy resources from truly renewable means, then it simply doesn't matter how much energy you are consuming. That is a point that the Right-wing in the USA refuses to understand.
Time and again those of you who support the notion that President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize, state his "calming" influence and his "inspiration". But the facts do little to support that notion. Were or are the Taliban calmed? Did the Russians decide to fully enforce sanctions against an about-to-go-nuclear Iran? I wonder if the Polish and Czech Republic would agree with your "calming" description; or rather are they now feeling betrayed and vulnerable.
It should take more than fuzzy warm feelings to earn such a prize, particularly when some of President Obama's actions and deeds might result in more violence and strife.
It should smack anyone who cares about peace as an insult that President Obama now sits as an equal with the likes of Nelson Mandela, and Mother Theresa. Really, is President Obama's efforts or actions in any way comparable to these individuals?
If the Nobel Prize is going to be awarded on such ephemeral criteria, then the Nobel Committee should be prepared for the trivialization of the award. Starting with Al Gore winning (now winning twice), Jimmy Carter (who ushered in another few decades of violence in the Middle East) and United Nations and Kofi Anin winning (in the same year that massive scandals were uncovered), it would seem that the Nobel Committee has lost any claim to be a serious contemplative body.
I say "yes" with the qualification that it wasn't really all that warranted.
A common misconception about the Nobel (Peace) Prize is that it's simply given out for what people have already done. But the prize is also given out to draw attention to global issues, peace initiatives or environmental dilemmas (etc.). And Obama is currently waist-deep in that stuff.
I think that this is more of a challenge to Obama and his presidency--than it is a simple award to Obama--to try to do more to steer the world towards a better path. The United States President has the most weight of any world leader in sociopolitical arenas and people look to the US President(s) to help shape the world. And what better burden is there than having to shoulder the promise of a Nobel Peace Prize?
I was brought back to this debate, and saw your argument.
Interesting stuff. What you're saying is that the Nobel Prize being given to Obama was merely a political move instead of one to reward him for his accomplishments in attaining peace (which would have been weird, since he has done nothing of the sort... at least Bush helped Africa; Obama has done nothing).
Not that many advocates of Obama admit that his prize was merely political. If only we could get advocates of Al Gore to do the same.
Like most people, I was surprised by the Nobel award.
Then I recalled that the Nobel Peace Prize is often given in recognition of efforts, not accomplishments, and that the Nobel Committee often favors individuals who symbolically stand in place of a larger cause and larger group (e.g., Desmond Tutu on behalf of those who fought against apartheid).
In that sense, the conservative pundits are right to a point in saying that Obama got the award for not being GW Bush. What they have left out of that analysis is that it is perfectly normal and justifiable for the Nobel Committee to award the prize as an endorsement or a spur-to-momentum for a particular political cause or position.
Meaning, in other words, that the international community and the Nobel Commission in particular thinks that the recent shift in American politics is such a momentous change in favor of peace when compared to the policies of the former administration that America -- or at least, American liberals -- deserve a Nobel Peace Prize in acknowledgement of this shift.
(Which says what, precisely, about how conservative American politics are perceived by the larger global community? Hmmm . . . nothing very favorable, I'd venture.)
Rachel Maddow gives perhaps the best analysis of the award that I've seen yet, and explains more eloquently than I could, so I have included a link to her video clip -- which I feel is very much worth watching in order to put the award into an appropriate context.
Rachel Maddow: The Nobel Prize & 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'
Although, I don't think he really deserved to win the Nobel Peace prize, its difficult to find any other candidates who deserve it more. Its true he is still the commander of forces engaged in war but I think, like another poster mentioned, that he has to most potential to make peace in the world. Another, strong point in his favor is the celebrations and rejoicing of the whole world after his election.
i think yes. Most of the world loves america now other than when we had bush and office. Also who else would get it? Glen Beck said it should go and give it to the protesters (i belive they started the no peace, if we invaded a country and stared attacking them, why would our country get award in peace, thats what they are doing.)
Well I'm pretty sure the black community was getting fed up with white people as the symbol of this country for so long that Obama taking office did keep the peace between the white and black communities. (;
You know, I think you may be onto something there. Maybe we should award the super bowl trophy to the team who tries the hardest. And hand out diplomas based on trying. And paychecks as well. I mean, Why stop there ;)
Your examples are not relevant to this context. Sporting events are competitions with defined winners. Diplomas are awarded for credits earned by completing course requirements. Paychecks are collected for hours worked at a series of given tasks. But world peace is a process. It's not like all it takes to achieve world peace is the right team, or the right training, or the right number of manpower hours -- because creating peace is not really an issue of talent, training, might, or manpower. It's an issue of inspiring large groups of people to dedicate their continued efforts to peace. If you are waiting for world peace to break out because of the acts of a single individual before you award anybody the Nobel Peace Prize, you are going to be waiting a very long time.
So of course it's appropriate to award the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of efforts.
Oh yeah, a process. Now I get it. And Obama was able to perfect that process after being in office for 11 days. Wow! That guy can do anything! He's really the messiah ;)
You're still giving specious examples here, man. Even the historic "messiah" would not qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize given your criteria of enacting or perfecting a process for enacting peace. That's because (1) there is no "perfect" peace process, and therefore (2) that's not what the Nobel is given for, and ergo (3) the award wasn't given for what Obama had done with the first 11 days of his office. It was given in recognition of the election of an American leader commited to withdrawal from West Asia, to unilateral nuclear disarmament, and to international cooperation. That doesn't make him a "messiah," just a competent president.
And since the U.S. hasn't had anybody competent in the big chair for the last several years, yeah, it actually is globally significant that one of the world's major superpowers is no longer under the direction of a coke-addled egomaniacal warmonger. ;)
This is really just an extension to a dispute I had with another argument: If I accept your description that the Nobel Peace Prize is an international award for "efforts" to bring about peace, then what demonstrable effect has any of President Obama efforts to bring about peace had in the world?
If the sum of his efforts is to inspire "large groups of people to dedicate their continued efforts to peace" then where are these "large groups people"? Does it matter which people are dedicating themselves? Because if the issue is whether or not President Obama's efforts has renewed, or inspired a dedication to peace, (putting aside the criteria of "large groups") then I think we can agree that getting large groups of Americans and/or Europeans to dedicate themselves to peace is not particularly meritorious for two reasons.
The first is that the efforts, and dedication of these groups have little to do with President Obam. Peace groups in America and Europe have been around for decades (actually President Obama has a negative effect on these groups because they are more galvanized when they feel the government is opposed to their efforts), and will be active long after President Obama.
The second reason is that these individuals, no matter how dedicated, have little impact on world peace. Peace efforts need to be pinpointed and perhaps even begun in those areas that are in conflict or turmoil. Americans holding rallies and singing Kumbaya does little for say...the plight of women in Afghanistan.
So it would seem the "large groups of people" would need to be either newly inspired or previously disposed peace groups resurging in areas that are conflict-ridden. Without expecting President Obama's efforts to be fully realized, there should be some way of judging the effect of his efforts thus far (and again putting aside the issue of whether it is measured from the date of his nomination or the date of the award).
So taking a gander at the international scene it should be possible to see some movement away from violence and towards peace. There should be at least some groups speaking loud and large in the most conflict-ridden regions of the world.
Isn't the opposite true? Genocide continues unabatted in several regions. Taliban violence has erupted in Afghanistan. Voilence is now erupting in Pakistan, and perhaps most sadly the President of the United State--the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize--sat quietly for days as the Iranian government squelched any dissent from protesting Iranian citizens over what most of the international community agrees was a corrupt election. In the one moment that could have led some credence to the awarding of the prize to President Obama; he failed.
This is not a man who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. That doesn't mean he is a terrible president, or a bad human being (most of us don't win a Nobel Peace Prize). But the prize is supposed to be reserved for extraordinary efforts, and/or accomplishments. This president has demonstrated neither.
He didn't deserve it, he said he didn't deserve it, and you don't deserve it either, so I'd expect you to tell the truth and say you don't deserve it as well.
It wasn't because Obama deserve the award, it was Who can we pretend to give the prize winnings to? They don't have any money to be giving away at this time, you know?
y wouldn't he deserve it. even thou i am just a child i know that he is just like the other people who won it but he is just the president. i am so tired of these haters hating to Obama because he is black. i hope yal no that know the he is also white. but it is ok but he dose deserve it.
yes he deserves it why wouldn't he why cant everyone support him just for being the first Black presided that has made it. Many people says he does'nt deserve well think twice and remember it was very tuff for him because many people don't want to see an African American president. But you cant give up on him now he deserves it and at the end you will really see why. So have faith in him and believe in him come on he's new at this don't be so hard on him just watch all the work he's going to do then you will see that he Will earn every award that is giving to him. All he need is for everyones support.
NOTE: The dead line for nominating someone for this year's Nobel Peace Price was February 1. Obama was in office in January 20. That means that he was in office 11 days before he was nominated. Come on! Weren't we debating a few days ago what has he done so far? And today he gets the Nobel Peace Price. Please!
My eye doctor says that I have to stop visiting this site. He says that all this eye rolling is wearing out my eye balls ;)
What about the case that they nominated him to watch him and if he deserved it they would award him? No one thinks of that situation. He deserved the award more than anyone else in the world.
He has drastically improved relations with Russia, and he's working hard to improve relations with Iran through direct talks. He is in the process of closing down the Gitmo torture prison, and he has ended torture as an official policy of the USA. We are also in the process of starting to withdraw the vast majority of our troops from Iraq, which was a huge debacle, and that effort will be ramping up next year.
He's already done some things that I think are significant, and I even listed them on here. I fully admit that Obama hasn't yet fully earned the Noble Peace Prize, and even Obama agrees with me. :)
I do think he's a good diplomat, but in order for him to really deserve this prize, I'm pretty sure he has to actually ACHIEVE peace first. x) I see why it was a good move for putting political pressure on him to continue peace efforts, but did he deserve this honor? Not really. I don't mean that as insulting, it's just that he hasn't actually achieved the goal of peace in any major way.
in order for him to really deserve this prize, I'm pretty sure he has to actually ACHIEVE peace first.
Actually, no. Madden points out how often the award is given in recognition of effort rather than accomplishment. Aung San Suu Kyi has not toppled the Burmese military junta; she got the prize for her efforts. Desmond Tutu didn't end apartheid, which was still going strong when he got the prize; he got it for efforts. Carter didn't create a lasting peace in the Middle East; he got the prize for efforts. And so forth.
Okay, that's true. I just don't know that his efforts are significant enough. I'm sure he WILL make significant efforts for peace; and I really like Obama foreign affairs-wise. But I think the prize shouldn't have been given prematurely.
The prizes are awarded by different associations. The Nobel Prize in Physics, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine by the Nobel Assembly at (the) Karolinska Institutet; and the Nobel Prize in Literature by the Swedish Academy.
Very true, but I'm still not sure he did enough to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize. Although he did close Guantanamo, and that was significant. I don't know. I just feel like he hasn't done enough yet. This, of course, is through no fault of his own; he hasn't had time to do enough yet...
Maybe it comes down to knowing who the other nominees were, what they accomplished, etc.
Well, even on the Gitmo issue, that torture prison isn't totally closed YET. So, really, I think that backs up my argument that Obama is merely moving in a different & more constructive direction that the Nobel people wanted to acknowledge. Obama's work is definitely a work in progress. :)
Mmmmm okay. I suppose that is true. He is moving America in a good direction, as far as foreign affairs go. And he is very much trying to be a diplomat. So I guess the award wasn't totally unearned. It just kind of throws one off, though, when someone who hasn't been president for very long gets such an award. I still say whether or not he deserved it remains to be seen; if he continues in a direction of peace, then yes, he deserved the award.
The members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee that were to award the Peace Prize were appointed shortly after the will was approved. The other prize-awarding organisations followed; the Karolinska Institutet on June 7, the Swedish Academy on June 9, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on June 11.
Let me ask this , what did Obama do that was so wonderful for this country? He was to busy playing golf rather than to decide to send or bring our troops to or from the war? I can't explain this to you liberal Democrates cause 99 of 100 says you won't listen watch a show called ''Glenn Beck'' 5:00 everyday on fox and open your ears and not your mouth!!!
If you were playing golf would you want to worry about everything? and your just a normal person,he is the president,you didn't catch bush playing golf while 9/11 was happening,he did everything he could to prevent having a major terrorist attack again,did we? NO If that ain't the truth GET THE HELL OUT OF AMERICA,the troops are fighting for YOU and obama and the rest of the U.S.A and obama can't give them a quick simple straight answer ,instead he will play his 18 holes ? sounds to me like our president don't give a crap about our troops! If he can do more than one thing at once then why don't he? Look at your facts before you argue!Or find some!
"you didn't catch bush playing golf while 9/11 was happening"
No, he was too busy reading a book about goats AFTER his aide said to him: "America is under attack."
"he did everything he could to prevent having a major terrorist attack again,did we?"
Hmmmm, including infringing on our rights as American citizens AND taking the unprecedented good will towards the USA after 9/11 & shredding it based on torture use & unnecessary wars abroad.
"If that ain't the truth GET THE HELL OUT OF AMERICA"
No thanks...the USA isn't "love it or leave it". I feel VERY lucky & privileged to have been born in the USA BTW.
"obama can't give them a quick simple straight answer ,instead he will play his 18 holes ? sounds to me like our president don't give a crap about our troops"
Please, GWB gave up golf "for the troops", but yet he let them down by sending them on fool hardly missions that were based on a pack of lies, period. That doesn't sound like he gave a damn about our brave troops to me!
"If he can do more than one thing at once then why don't he?"
Watch & learn Right-winger.
"Look at your facts before you argue!Or find some!"
aedm:"Look at your facts before you argue!Or find some!"
MisterGuy:You first! LOL...
aedm:"you didn't catch bush playing golf while 9/11 was happening"
MisterGuy:No, he was too busy reading a book about goats AFTER his aide said to him: "America is under attack."
But MisterGuy didn't you say aedm needed to find facts? No, he was too busy reading a book about goats AFTER his aide said to him: "America is under attack." sounds like something you made up because your venting because you didn't like bush.
I agree with some of your idea's on both sides but i think your both venting.
After awhile people began to love there government and not there country. if the government does not protect the rights of the people as we see fit, we have the right to change the government.
So for both of you I would stop loving the government and love your country more.
"sounds like something you made up because your venting because you didn't like bush."
Are you kidding me?? The fact that at this late date that you don't know what GWB did IMMEDIATELY after being told "the USA is under attack" is truly breathtaking!:
aedm is right. It's the Vietnam war are troops are dying for are country and Obama is the President and a advisor asks him if were taking are troops out our leaving them there, he answers hell if I know, and who cares I'm going to play golf".
"Obama is the President and a advisor asks him if were taking are troops out our leaving them there, he answers hell if I know, and who cares I'm going to play golf."
That's not what Obama has said, and you know it...please...
Of course he didn't deserve it. That's why I no longer believe that majority of Nobel Prize winners really deserve it, plus it decreases the value and hard work that older prize winners had to do to gain such a honorable award.
Nikola Tesla (not Thomas Edison) made more contributions to the development of electric power and never won a Nobel Prize eventhough it is more than obvious that he deserved it.
My 1 year old cousin is going to be nominated next year for her efforts to bring world peace to her diaper. Right now, though, like Nobama, she is full of crap.
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize... Do you think he deserved to win? No, when Hitler came to power, the German people believed that he would change everything, but did the world give him a Nobel Peace Prize? No. If somebody say's i was comparing Obama to Hitler you should rethink. I'm a American and i support my president no matter who he is even if i don't like him.
Simply look at the facts. He was nominated after 11 days. He didn't even have a chance to attempt to make world peace. He was probably still unpacking all his stuff. If he had actually had a chance to try, he may have deserved it. But 11 days? Thats just too soon.
deserves peace prize? thats why we are billions of dollars in debt, that he wants to form a socialist gov, that he wants to start an other war in the middle east before we have fixed or finished the one were already in, well the peace prize is joke i hope you all know. Afrat a PLO terrorist and conspirator won it, so any one can get it. obama cause hes black, and maybe you for some other bogus reason.
Of course not; he has done nothing to actually create peace.
He is nothing but a good speaker. If you really want to give someone a nobel peace prize for bringing hope and change to their people, try Che, Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. Those guys were very inspirational.
Obama hasn't done anything let alone bring peace anywhere..oh yeah he did he's spent more money than all the past presidents combined but correct me if i'm wrong they don't give a prize for that do they? Obama strokes his ego enough the way it is and they give him a nobel peace prize just adds one more thing to his ego...if you don't agree well then you're probably a racist lol
Has much as I think Bush was not a true conservative and I hated his spending which is even against the definition of what a true conservative is. The new administrations proposed budget makes Bush's spending look like peanuts when we are now talking about Obama going into the 10 trillion over the next ten years that's why everybody is worried about inflation kicking in. That is real money that has to be paid back. Right now there is no control over spending at all on both sides and it is going to kill us if it is not handled.
The issue with the federal budget is not only a spending issue, and I would argue that it's not even mostly a spending issue, since the last budget busting can be directly tied to the aftermath of the horrendous Bush Tax Cuts, which went mostly to the wealthy & did nothing for real job growth. The USA has BOTH a spending AND a revenue problem. Those that think that we can solve our budgetary problems with only reductions in spending are foolhardy IMO.
Right now there is almost a tax on everything. If it wasn't for the Bush Tax cuts we would be worse off now. There will be tens of thousands more business's that will fail when they let the tax cuts expire. It will add the extra 5% to corporate tax which that 5% companies are barely clinging to on as a profit. I highly disagree with and hear it a lot that the 5% cut did nothing but help the wealthy even more. 75% of all corporations have less than 500 employees and 5% is a big deal when you are talking about a company making it. Do you own your own business? I do I have 4 employees and I use to have 10 but I had to let them go because overall revenue is down. Try to open a business the cost are staggering and the risk of failure are high. When the tax burden is lightened business feels confident and then goes and hires more employees when they feel they are being squeezed they cut jobs it's really simple.
"If it wasn't for the Bush Tax cuts we would be worse off now."
There's absolutely ZERO evidence of this. All the Bush Tax cuts did was deprive the govt. of trillions of dollars in revenue that it would have gotten had the tax cuts, which went mostly to the rich BTW, weren't enacted.
"There will be tens of thousands more business's that will fail when they let the tax cuts expire."
This is fear-mongering. At "worst", the tax rates would go back to what they were under Clinton, when we had the longest post-war economic expansion in history.
"When the tax burden is lightened business feels confident and then goes and hires more employees when they feel they are being squeezed they cut jobs it's really simple."
"Trickle down" voodoo economics has been a complete & utter failure the two times that it's been tried now, when either party was in control of Congress.
I would just like to know what great feat of peace did Obama do? Did he stop a world war or did he stop world hunger? Not saying Obama is a bad guy i just do not know what he did to earn this award.
So Ronald Reagan tears down the Berlin wall and frees millions of communist slaves and he doesn't even get a wink at the Nobel Prize. But only 11 days into Obama term they have deemed him to receive the Nobel Prize. It's comes off a little suspicious.
What??? Ronald Reagan DID NOT tear down the Berlin Wall! Gorbachev did. Reagan was just one of many leaders around the world who WANTED that wall torn down. We, as Americans, like to think WE solve all the worlds freakin problems. If you go to any other country... ANY ONE, the citizens will tell you that THERE country is the most powerful, influential country on earth. I wouldnt be suprised if people thought Gunter Schabowski is responsibe for the fall of the Berlin Wall.
True. But now that we've cleared that up, don't you think Gorbachev would deserve the Nobel Prize more than Reagan? Gorbachev is the one who made the ultimate decision. He's the one that took all the crap from opposing countries for his decision.
Well than yes so Gorbachev did all of that and tore down the so called wall of hate and he never got the Nobel Prize and should have since Obama got one, maybe because the Nobel prize people are biased towards capitalist like Gorbachev is.
Well...Obama did work to help the Americans. However,in this short time ,I don't think he deserved to win...There is even more people who did worked and deserved to have a prize,but they didn't!!So where is the point of letting Obama to win this Nobel Peace Prize?Did he do anything that make the world peace??Definitely No!!He made the world even worst!! What he did was to let wars going on, more and more people died because of those dumb wars!!!
because if i compare him to Dr. Manmohan Singh who has also won Nobel price for Peace then Obama is not the right person to get this. U can compare both the personalities !!
Obama is undertaking an objective to end the U.S.'s involvement in the horrendous Iraq War. He has also smoothed relations with Russia, and he is working to smooth relations with Iran as well through direct talks.
