Debate Info

16

11

Yes

No

Debate Score:	27
Arguments:	17
Total Votes:	34
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Yes (9)

No (8)

Debate Creator

Will historians view Barack Obama as a good President?

Yes Side Score: 16		No Side Score: 11
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

3 points

Absolutely. History shows us that society becomes more socially "liberal" as it progresses so things like "gay marriage" and most other "liberal" views help by Obama will seem like a given or "the right choice" in the future (in my opinion). The major "black spot" on Obama's presidency so far is the slow economy but I think it will be clear to historians, looking at the whole picture and trends, will see that in fact the economy was already crashing before Obama took office. Since Obama took office, it has bottomed out and is now improving. In another 4 years the economy may be doing really well in which cased Obama will be seen as a hero even if other policies would have fixed the economy faster (we will never know the answer to that one).

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

3 points

I concur. I think Obama is far from perfect, but did a decent job with the situation he was presented with. Even with an obstructionist congress he has been fairly effective. It reminds me of Reagan. Whether you agree with his specific policies you have to admire his effectiveness. Same with Obama.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

lego30722 (3) Disputed

1 point

No absolutely not. Obama has not done anything for this country. Except 2 things got us in way over our heads in debt. And not help our allies like israel in times of need like now with Iran on the verge of nuclear warheads. He has not helped the economy we are a full 16 trilion $$ in debt. When Bush was president he only had 5 trillion, plus he was fighting 2 wars against terror.

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

1 point

I disagree.

- If you ask me getting Osama Bin Laden is something

- If you ask a family who can keep their 23 year old college grad on their insurance they'd say he did something.

- If you ask a kid of illegal immigrants who previously had to look over his shoulder he'd say he did something.

- If you ask an autoworker in Detroit whose job was saved by the auto bailout they'd say he did something

- Not help Isreal ? He sent billions in additional funding for the Iron Dome system

- On the debt, yes he added alot of debt. But you stab yourself in the foot when you reference the two wars. A big part of the current debt was caused because President Bush didn't put those wars on the books and we're paying for it now. In fact he is now ending those wars which will save alot of money.

You might not like these accomplishments but they got done.

BTW I might suggest you do a bit more research. Your argument is very weak

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

GuitaristDog (2548) Disputed

1 point

so things like "gay marriage" and most other "liberal" views help by Obama will seem like a given or "the right choice" in the future (in my opinion).

Obama has done nothing for gay marriage, he (like most democrats) just holds gay marriage as a bargaining chip to use during elections.

The major "black spot" on Obama's presidency so far is the slow economy but I think it will be clear to historians, looking at the whole picture and trends, will see that in fact the economy was already crashing before Obama took office.

And then historians will take a look at the economy and realize that although it was bad when Obama took office, he made it worse and his policies prolonged it.

Since Obama took office, it has bottomed out and is now improving.

False. What you are experiencing is a mixture of lies and early effects of inflation. The stock has been constantly dropping and after Obama was re-elected the stock market has started dropping more and more, the jobless rate was around 14% when Obama took office, it is now over 16%. Now this slight economic growth will end badly, why? Because it is just a slight surge that we will all feel from the inflation in the beginning, as Milton Friedman said "Inflation is like alcoholism, the good effects come first" so after these good effects wear off, things will take a sharp turn for the worse.

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

OODaddy (127) Disputed

1 point

Obama was the first US President to openly support Gay marraige. IMO repealing Dont Ask Dont Tell sends a serious message which creates an environment that has led to more acceptance of gays in general.

You are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY wrong when you say Obama made things worse. The stock market has doubled and the unemployment rate is lower, period. One might speculate things might have been better, one might also speculate McCain would have made things worse.

It's pretty laughable that you look at two days of a down market and use that as your measurement. I'll make you a bet. At the end of his term the stock market will be much higher than when he took office.

At the end you again base your argument on speculation that tings will get worse. I speculate things will get better. Guess that makes us even even.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

user554random (1175) Disputed

1 point

And then historians will take a look at the economy and realize that although it was bad when Obama took office, he made it worse and his policies prolonged it.

Made it worse how? And what policies have prolonged the recession?

The stock has been constantly dropping and after Obama was re-elected the stock market has started dropping more and more, the jobless rate was around 14% when Obama took office, it is now over 16%.

No, the Dow was at ~8000 when Obama took office, it has since climbed to 12800. As for the "jobless rate" you claimed, I googled it and can find only unemployment statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics rates the unemployment rate at 7.9% as of October, with Obama having net job growth of at least 125 thousand under his presidency.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

GuitaristDog (2548) Disputed

1 point

Made it worse how? And what policies have prolonged the recession?

Well before I explain the recession, lets rewind for a second shall we?

Lets say, 1929 when a business crash (similar to the 2008 crash) happened and caused the early stage of the recession. Now here is where the Federal Reserve comes into play, their bad monetary policy in is what spun it into a major economic collapse (which was exactly what they were supposed to prevent.) Then Franklin Roosevelt's "progressive" economic policies prolonged the depression by seven years. Similar situation we face today: Business collapse, bad monetary policy and "progressive" economic policies and although it isn't nearly as bad as the Great Depression, it is still bad and has he possibility to get much worse.

Obviously this is an over simplified version, but I think you should get the point.

As for the "jobless rate" you claimed, I googled it and can find only unemployment statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics rates the unemployment rate at 7.9% as of October, with Obama having net job growth of at least 125 thousand under his presidency.

Well two things:

1. The "7.9" unemployment rate was most likely a lie, a large number of economist and people who study the market said that the numbers they gave just did not add up.

2. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people on unemployment (leave it to the government to twist the facts) and does not really give you a sense of how many people aren't working. The jobless rate is the percentage of people (not including minors and the retired) so it is, in a sense, the "real" unemployment rate."

Here is a little article about it

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

user554random (1175) Disputed

1 point

Well two things:

1. The "7.9" unemployment rate was most likely a lie, a large number of economist and people who study the market said that the numbers they gave just did not add up.

2. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people on unemployment (leave it to the government to twist the facts) and does not really give you a sense of how many people aren't working. The jobless rate is the percentage of people (not including minors and the retired) so it is, in a sense, the "real" unemployment rate."

Addressing #1: No, it was not a lie. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives 6 classifications for unemployment. They are classified as U1-U6. What the "expert" at the article did was cherry pick the number, which likely was the U6 definition for "umemployment" since that currently stands at ~15%.

U6: total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

The U3 metric is the "official" metric for unemployment, so it is not a lie.

Addressing #2: What you're describing looks like the U4 metric for unemployment by the BLS which is defined as follows: U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;

The BLS puts the U4 metric at 8.8%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics: U1-U6

Lets say, 1929 when a business crash (similar to the 2008 crash) happened and caused the early stage of the recession. Now here is where the Federal Reserve comes into play, their bad monetary policy in is what spun it into a major economic collapse (which was exactly what they were supposed to prevent.)

There were different factors that caused these two recessions though, so they're not exactly similar. Albeit, I'm no economics expert. Based off of my understanding though, they were still going by the gold standard, and the Hoover administration refused to do anything to help the economy, sticking with a strict definition of laissez faire. Roosevelt came into office and started enacting programs to fix the recession, but to my knowledge these had a minimal impact on the economy and were more of a morality booster if anything, and it wasn't until WWII came in that the economy fixed itself.

Did I get an A?

Anyways, I think the two situations are different. And both republicans and democrats had agreed that money needed to be spent, and that a stimulus bill was necessary.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

GuitaristDog (2548) Disputed

1 point

Addressing #1: No, it was not a lie. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives 6 classifications for unemployment. They are classified as U1-U6. What the "expert" at the article did was cherry pick the number, which likely was the U6 definition for "umemployment" since that currently stands at ~15%.

You mis-understood, I'm not saying that using U3 is a lie, I said it is twisting facts. What I said is (suspect, not absolutely confirmed) is that the U3 rate dropping was a lie, a good amount of people who watch the markets said that the numbers the The Bureau of Labor Statistics didn't add up.

Based off of my understanding though, they were still going by the gold standard, and the Hoover administration refused to do anything to help the economy, sticking with a strict definition of laissez faire.

Actually no, the whole "Herbt Hoover was laissez faire" is a complete myth. Here are some of Hoover's "laissez faire" actions:

-Began construction on the boulder dam

-Raised tariffs to their 2nd highest level

-Bailed out banks with his "Reconstruction Finance Corporation"

-Created the Federal Farm board

-Raised taxes in 1932

Some economists, like Steven Horwitz, even refer to him as the "father of the New Deal"

Roosevelt came into office and started enacting programs to fix the recession, but to my knowledge these had a minimal impact on the economy and were more of a morality booster if anything, and it wasn't until WWII came in that the economy fixed itself.

Right about the first part, however, WWII did not actually fix the economy. Although, in a sense, the war production was considered to boost the economy, in the long run wars are ALWAYS the destruction of wealth. The only people who benefit from wars are the defense contractors who are payed to blow stuff up. Eventually, when the war ended and America was pretty much the "last man standing" if you will (compared to most industrial nations we were un-touched by the war giving us an economic increase) and this caused a boom.

Anyways, I think the two situations are different. And both republicans and democrats had agreed that money needed to be spent, and that a stimulus bill was necessary.

There are very rare times when there needs to be stimulus, you can't tax and spent your self out of a recession.

Did I get an A?

Not an A, but I must say, I am impressed that you actually have knowledge of this. Most people's knowledge of American history is just the revolutionary war and Reagan through Obama.

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

PrayerFails (11165)

1 point

It is really subjective, so of course, historians will view Obama as great considering most historians are predominately liberal.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

Akulakhan (2985)

1 point

As the first Kenyan Atheist Muslim Illuminati president, he's doing a damn fine job.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

Absolutely ! Historians view Barak Obama as a good President. Obama has so many performances in his tenure.

11 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

PhxDemocrat (13121)

1 point

It is now 2015 and I think historians will view Barack Obama as one of the best Presidents.

8 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

GuitaristDog (2548)

1 point

It really depends, if you mean intelligent historians, no. If you mean the historians who put Woodrow Wilson in the top 5 presidents, then yes, he will be remember as a great President.

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

PrayerFails (11165)

1 point

Precisely, it really is about perspective, and those most historians are partial to Obama.

11 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates