Help with homework or Dems say whatFollow

As is too often the case these days, elections seem to draw out every teachers political agenda. What should be your basic Eng 101 class becomes a political debate. I've taken the side of against Obama (note its not for McCain just against Obama) and need to come up with counter arguments to anticipated counter arguments for pathos and logos points.

The problem is I can anticipate any counter arguments. I'm not saying there aren't any, just that I'm not really creative. Also, everyone I've talked to who is for Obama is either voting against McCain or an idiot who gets lost after he has run out of slogans to sling. I know there are intelligent people voting for Obama, I'm just having trouble finding them.

So I come here, I will list the points have, some I know are dubious, and you feel free to counter which ever you like. I get help on homework and hopefully it springboards some interesting dialogue.

1. As a senator in Illinois, Obama voted against harsher penalties for child molesters saying "Everone makes mistakes."

2.Obama's image of growing up in a single parent house is lie. His mom remarried when he was 5 to a wealthy oil man and they were together until Obama was 29. When he was 10 he moved in with his grandparents until he finsihed high school.

3.Obama has a track record of not being able to make decisions. He has the highest percentage of "present" votes in Illinois, mostly on controversial issues.

4.Obama gave $832,000 of his campaing money to Acorn. He lied to the FEC claiming the money was for staging, lighting, and sound.

5.Obama received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator save Chris Dodd and blocked legislation designed to monitor them for abuse.

6.Obama has voted with Nancy Palosi 100% of the time.

7.Obama had to side step the question "Other than being the democratic presidential candidate, what is the greatest accomplishment of your career?"

8.Obama's tax plan is really welfare. Since the tax cuts are "refundable" those who don't pay taxes are still eligible for 6 out of 7 tax cuts.

9.The bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of the net federal income yet would receive 100% of the benefit from Obama's plans.

10 Obama's plan actually discourage the bettering of one's self. If you make between $40,000-$42,000 and than get a raise of another job you will receive less net income since the tax cuts don't scale accurately. Until you hit $47,000 you will have less net income than before

11.Since businesses will now have to pay for health care and likely higher minimum wage, prices will go up or they will have to fire employees.

12.Obama says he will lower the taxes on 9 out of 10 small businesses but the top 15% of businesses employ 85% of the small business jobs. This is the group he is raising taxes on. So either prices will go up or people get fired.

13.Though Obama promises to lower taxes he has voted against it 4 out the 5 times he has voted on it in his career.

14.Under Obama's plan 44% of America will have no tax liability.


Edited, Oct 25th 2008 3:14am by webwierdo

Edited, Oct 25th 2008 4:10am by webwierdo

Actually part of the assignment was to attack the man.

Any time you are really trying to convince someone of something you have you have to attack the man because facts and logic will just bounce off most peoples heads. Its kind of like boxing. You don't go for the knock out punch right away. You work the body(the heart or pathos) first so they drop there guard. Then you attack the head(mind or logos) then you bring in the referee( outsider or ethos)

Also the debate setup is a little weird. Each side has three "Prove it" chances. If you catch someone in a lie you get 3 points but if you are wrong you lose 2. So we are actually expected to make up some things but they can't be too obvious

On a side note. I actually do like this professor because you can engage him in political discussion without getting his ideas stuffed down your throats. In another writing class we had to do an essay on why Obama was best for the economy. There was no option to do McCain or why Obama would be bad. It is frighting sometimes what teachers with tenure get away with though I do realize they aren't the majority.

Edited, Oct 25th 2008 3:04am by webwierdo

I am extremely bored, so I shall assume that all of those claims are true.



Child molesters are still humans, repugnant as the behavior may seem to you. I don't know what a "less harsh" penalty might entail, but I have never believed in throwing away the key for crimes like this.



This shows care and forethought and a reluctance to get in over his head in debates that might be extremely complex.



Were these the same votes that he was merely "present" for? It's a bit unclear. In any case, some people might agree with Nancy Pelosi about stuff... If you are a democrat then this is probably a point for Obama.


Need before greed and all that. Again, this is a point for Obama if you already are of the persuasion that you're getting ****** over by the super rich.



Higher prices in the market for guaranteed medical treatment. Sounds like a good trade.

Erm.. after reacding through these points, I have to say that many are unclear or unanswerable without a lot more information, such as, all of the ones that I didn't answer.

Good luck with school and such.

Maybe he'll go: "Sorry Israel, it's your choise to bomb the sh*t out of Iran, it's your fUcking problem if they bomb the sh*t out of you back".

Sometime not getting involved IS the best thing to do.

Even the OP isn't arguing that Obama doesn't act everytime, or even close if you bother to look at the actual facts.

We've discussed it before, but the "present" votes are a specific tactic used in Illinois Congress.

The rest of your points are either not specific or sourced enough to hold water, or they are statements which are not necessarily negative.

E.g, "voted with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the time." This argument has zero validity unless you provide a thorough argument of why Nancy Pelosi = inherently bad.*






*Yes, I'm aware the Obama campaign uses this against McCain, "he voted with Bush over 90% of the time." The difference is that campaigns aren't formal debates.**

**No, not even the "debates."






Edited, Oct 25th 2008 12:41pm by trickybeck

Many of your points are missing enough information to make any judgments, and it would be wrong to assume your audience is familiar with specific instances of Obama’s past enough to make those judgments. Also, many of the points contain rhetorical slander along with missing information so they appear somewhat silly and in some cases simply false.

1. Explain what those “harsher penalties” are. Was it the death penalty? That would be different than life in prison or just longer sentences in general.

2. Obama’s image is very subjective, and I may have a different image of him than you or anyone else. This is assuming too much about your audience.

3. Criticizing votes in the legislative branch is pretty much pointless. The way they tack so many different items onto items to bills, you could be morally obligated to vote for the bill and legally obligated to vote against it, so a present vote is used to indicate you cannot vote either way for some reason.

4. This claim is implying some wrongdoing but lacking many details. Once Obama’s campaign contributed to money to Acorn, did they have any sort of control over how it was spent? Do you have records about what Acorn actually spent this money on? Are you actually making the claim that Obama’s campaign knowingly donated to Acorn to commit voter registration fraud?

5. Should Obama have given the money back? If so, on what grounds? What does it mean that he “blocked” legislation? You make it sound like a hockey game, did he just vote against it or did he try to filibuster? Again, what else was in that bill, is it possible he wasn’t actually voting on that specific issue? Any vote in the legislative branch must be carefully examined before judgments are made. Unless you have actually read the bill in question you should not be forming an opinion about it.

6. An interesting fact, if it is true. Again, any vote in the legislative branch must be carefully examined before judgments are made. Unless you have actually read the bill in question you should not be forming an opinion about it.

7. This is just silly false innuendo, what does it mean to side-step this question? Rarely do people have one moment or single event that would be their “greatest accomplishment,” like going to the moon or some such nonsense. People should be measured by the decisions they have made throughout their lifetimes.

8. This is a blatant misrepresentation of what welfare really is. A tax cut is not welfare. Welfare is something completely different. This is a simple definition of terms, like calling him a commie or a socialist. Its rhetorical slander.

9. What percentage of the population is in the bottom 60% of income earners? The vast majority. So Obama’s plan would benefit the vast majority of people.

10. Again this is just rhetorical slander. His plan does not discourage the bettering of oneself. You are not clear in your facts about how large the raise of another job is, but I happen to make around that much a year and have looked up my tax cut under Obama’s plan and it is around $1500 that I would save. Anyone making less than $250,000 a year will receive a tax cut.

11. It is wrong to assign blame for the price increases and layoffs we will see in the near future to Obama and his tax plan. This is the price of living on borrowed dimes and time, the price of believing in fake wealth. You can blame Clinton and Bush for that. Small businesses will receive enough tax credits and cuts that it will be easier for them to buy health insurance under Obama’s plan. If the corporations want cheap taxes, let them go to Ireland.

12. The corporations will not just stop hiring these people. Yes, prices will go up but if people don’t have jobs they won’t be buying their products. It requires corporations and people working together to make a good economy, and for too long the corporations have had the upper hand and have been squeezing the poor people, not it is time to turn the tables.

13. You are not making clear what “it” is. Lowering taxes? Could it be that he voted against lowering taxes for the extremely wealthy? Again, any vote in the legislative branch must be carefully examined before judgments are made. Unless you have actually read the bill in question you should not be forming an opinion about it.

14. Most people do not know what this means and you are not providing an explanation of why this is bad and you are not offering any relevant comparisons so that we can compare and judge Obama to other Presidents or candidates.



Edited, Oct 25th 2008 2:57pm by soulshaver

Get me some while you're at it and throw in some fresh rolls.

Part of the problem is the assignment. Our points are supposed "zingers" as the professor calls them. Short and to the point. But, to actually have a debate about the issues will require in depth description because at face value the policies of both candidates sound great so I need to retool these to fit more info into them.

1. As a senator in Illinois, Obama voted against harsher penalties for child molesters saying "Everyone makes mistakes."

At the time this bill was proposed, Illinois was 5th in the nation for sex crimes against children. Many criminologists blamed the lack of harsh penalties. There was one other person who voted against this and he had a relative arrested soon after for sex crimes. I don't know if that had an effect on his vote but it was a small scandal.

2.Obama's image of growing up in a single parent house is lie. His mom remarried when he was 5 to a wealthy oil man and they were together until Obama was 29. When he was 10 he moved in with his grandparents until he finsihed high school.


Fair point but we over heard the other side talking about this in class so we know they might use it.

3.Obama has a track record of not being able to make decisions. He has the highest percentage of "present" votes in Illinois, mostly on controversial issues.


So is that saying that he found the issues extremely complex more often than any other senator in Illinois.


I've heard about this but didn't really understand it. Still its seems odd that he would have the highest percentage.


That's fair I'll have to come up with a way to counter that. I know on at least one bill he was the only present vote everyone else voted for it. Something about sex offenders not getting off early.

4.Obama gave $832,000 of his campaing money to Acorn. He lied to the FEC claiming the money was for staging, lighting, and sound.



No, but I'm trying to imply it. This is an appeal to pathos not logos. Also why did he lie to the FEC. When caught, he later said the it was "[to] get out the vote." Why not say that to begin with. Also I don't really put much credence into the voter fraud thing. The employees get paid on a quota system so they fill out fake registrations. No Acorn employee has been charged with voter fraud just registration fraud.

5.Obama received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other senator save Chris Dodd and blocked legislation designed to monitor them for abuse.



All good points, but again this one is an appeal to pathos. There was no filibuster just a vote against but the democrats have the majority so there wouldn't need to be a filibuster. I don't know the exact wording of the bill so I will have to check into that to see what else was in it.

6.Obama has voted with Nancy Palosi 100% of the time.

This one is true. Nancy Palosi has one of the lowest approval ratings of all times and Obama has always agreed with her. On some polls her numbers are worse than Bush's. It's meant to counter the McCain votes with Bush thing. Since Bush doesn't actually get a vote I can only assume that means that 85% of the time McCain agrees with the white house stance which is always the party line. So 85%
of the time McCain votes with his party and Obama votes 100% of the time with his party.

7.Obama had to side step the question "Other than being the democratic presidential candidate, what is the greatest accomplishment of your career?"

This one is a lie but I'm trying to make the point that he hasn't done anything outstanding in his career. He hasn't spearhead any legislation. He always makes the safe vote. His only demonstrated skill is his ability to talk well. I'm not saying he doesn't have any other skills just that I've never seen them.

8.Obama's tax plan is really welfare. Since the tax cuts are "refundable" those who don't pay taxes are still eligible for 6 out of 7 tax cuts.



Its a blatant misrepresentation of what a tax cut really is.
If I owe $1.00 in taxes and have a $500 tax cut then I owe nothing and were done
If I owe $1.00 in taxes and have a $500 "refundable" tax cut I owe nothing and the government sends me a check for $499.

When the government gives you money for not doing anything I call that welfare. As long as you work ONE HOUR A YEAR you will qualify for 6 out of 7 "refundable" tax cuts. Also the refunds are scaled so a person who works one hour will receive more money from the government than those who are regularly employed even at minimum wage jobs.

9.The bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of the net federal income yet would receive 100% of the benefit from Obama's plans.

Yeah I probably won't use this one.

10. Obama's plan actually discourage the bettering of one's self. If you make between $40,000-$42,000 and than get a raise of another job you will receive less net income since the tax cuts don't scale accurately. Until you hit $47,000 you will have less net income than before.


Its a technical loophole that would probably be fixed before enacted. For simplicity lets say I make $10 I pay $6 in taxes and get back $3. My net would end up being $7 and my taxes were lowered. Now lets say I make $12 pay $9 in taxes and because I'm still in the same bracket would still only get back $3 so my net was $6. It's the same thing at the $40,000-$42,000 range. Past $42,000 until you make $47,000 you will actually have a net lower income.

11.Since businesses will now have to pay for health care and likely higher minimum wage, prices will go up or they will have to fire employees.

12.Obama says he will lower the taxes on 9 out of 10 small businesses but the top 15% of businesses employ 85% of the small business jobs. This is the group he is raising taxes on. So either prices will go up or people get fired.

The problem is the company's getting assistance to pay for health care aren't the ones giving the majority of the health care. What if your job is one of the ones laid off to pay for the health care of others.


The problem is they will. They are going to do their best to keep there the profit margins the same. So if its cheaper to produce in another country and ship it here they will. The end result is we lose jobs. We are getting something in return for the job loss but most of his plans will result in job loss so how does he intend to counter that.

13.Though Obama promises to lower taxes he has voted against it 4 out the 5 times he has voted on it in his career.

14.Under Obama's plan 44% of America will have no tax liability.

Probably won't use these points

Look in front of you.

Also, all of your statements are either misleading or downright false.

If that is what you are trying to go for, (As it seems you are, by wanting quick erroneous lines to spew out) then you are doing it right, although intelligent people will just laugh at you and move on.(And I don't mean just if they are on that side of the political fence; the same would be true you if you made similar claims about McCain).

If however your goal is to have a meaningful, intelligent debate about real issues, you've missed the point entirely.

Your first impression sucks, of both forums.



Happens quite often really. You just have to expend a little effort.

E-thuggin, cause when you are ignorant as **** and all the things you say are proven wrong at least you can threaten physical violence over the internet.

If McCain drags a dog up on stage I'm gonna laugh.