The Instigator
bones
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
mrmatt505
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 19,633 times Debate No: 2598
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (12)

 

bones

Pro

Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents in American history. He had no regard for the Constitution, killed citizens for speaking out against the war, did not allow the southern states to recede, and led to inflation in America and the growing national debt.
mrmatt505

Con

First off, Andrew Jackson wouldn't let South Carolina secede from the union either, and he was heralded as a hero. Lincoln should as well. Next, Lincoln was the one who made the Republican party strong. Whether you are Republican or not (I'm not) you cannot reject the fact that the Republican party is essential in our modern day political climate. Also, with your argument about how he did acts that were unconstitutional, ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THAT SO YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR ARGUMENT ON THAT! But, he at least tries to uphold the constitution by keeping the union together and it is a good thing he did or else we wouldn't be a nation.

But onto your killing argument. I will assume you are referring to the Civil War. It is obvious that all of the super powers today have had a civil war. The French have had many. The Russians have had countless. And America has had 2, one that was a tangible war and one that was a peaceful war. War is essential for positive change because it is the only way to defend what is truly good.

No matter what you or anyone thinks. Abraham Lincoln stood for good morals, a strong nation, and a great leader of men.

My final question is what do you consider to be "one of the worst". I would like clarification on that.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 1
bones

Pro

To get this out of the way, Andrew Jackson was a protectionist that destroyed the banking industry in America. He should have let any state that wanted to secede secede. But this is not a debate about Jackson, but it is a debate about Lincoln…

"One of the worst", is a very general response, I will agree. I just mean that in the course of America's history, Lincoln was a very bad chapter. He did more wrong for the country than he did good, and some of the areas that he did wrong in were in my above statements. I hope you have a better sense of what I'm trying to get at. Hopefully you do or you wouldn't have taken the argument. There have been presidents that have done nothing and there are presidents that have done good things. All of those presidents did some things wrong and some things right. The difference is how the country was after their terms, and only by their influences. The country could have been in shambles after Lincoln and that didn't mean he was a bad president; it just meant that there was a war and things were completely fixed after his tenure. But I do not hold to that statement. Lincoln did leave the country in shambles and it was because of him, namely, that the country was in shambles.
The only way that Lincoln made the GOP strong was in gaining the support of the African American vote. And today that is the democratic vote. He gained the AA's vote by making them free of slavery. I am a Republican in the truest sense of the word.

Political parties are good for today, but they are not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is correct philosophical thinking on what government should be and what it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter what political party understands that. Lincoln did nothing to strengthen America if he strengthened a political party that advocates first-strike policies, protectionist foreign-trade tariffs, lower taxes on only the rich, reformed campaign finance, and elects John McCain as a spokesperson. (The last one was a joke, kind of…maybe not…) I find nothing worthy in stoking a fire that will burn the house instead of heat the inhabitants.

The Constitution says nothing about keeping the states together. We were united because we wanted to be. The word ‘united' wasn't even capitalized in the original Constitution. The founding fathers agreed that we were the States of America and that we were united. It was an adjective, not a title. The states should have the right to secede, if they feel that the government is not doing its job or is taking its job too far. That is in the Constitution. We did the same thing to become a nation. Now we as a public have this warped view that the government is there to do all these things for us. The number one employer in America is the government! How is that not a sign of socialism to come! We were started on this path before Lincoln, but we were thrust hard on the path by Lincoln. Lincoln was a fascist and we are now because of his strengthening of the ‘Republic.' He called it a Republic all the time because that is how he leaned the public to agree with him, definition of fascism. The coercion in Lincoln's voice is still repeated today by innocent fifth graders learning the Gettysburg Address by heart. Lincoln's disregard for the Constitution was what led us to the Civil War and to the biggest loss of life in war in this country's history. Presidents vow to obey the Constitution, not destroy it. I base my argument on that Abraham Lincoln disregarded the constitution, thus we incurred the loss of thousands of innocent soldiers, liberties such as freedom of speech were abolished in the name of keeping the nation together in a time of war (sounds similar, excuse me, sounds exactly like what Hitler and Mussolini told Germany and Italy), the debt of America grew tremendously because of financing the war, the dollar grew tremendously weak because of counterfeiting by the government (first paper dollars were made by Lincoln), and the economy of America suffered a recession because of the instant loss of an industry. The free market was not allowed to work to get rid of the slaves, thus the market suffered when it was tampered with by Lincoln.

Many presidents have disregarded the Constitution, but there are only a few more that have had as little respect for it as Old Abe.

As a sidebar, my killing argument was about the public hangings that Lincoln ordered for people that spoke out against the war. Too bad they don't do that today. Let's lethal inject every single registered democrat that doesn't support the Iraq war, oh wait, I forgot. It hasn't been officially declared a war by Congress, so they can talk all they want. Oh yeah, Congress never declared war on the ‘South' either.

War is only a last response that very rarely needs to happen. I defend good things everyday by going to class, speaking out against the war in Iraq, defending my faith, and none of these are done by war, but my tolerance. We have to let people do what they want to do. That is the only way we are going to be able to get along in this world.

This is my first debate so take it easy on me...LOL
mrmatt505

Con

First off, the Iraq war was not necessary. Second, there is no such thing as a "true" republican, there is also no such thing as a "true" democrat either. Which is why I choose to be moderate. But furthermore, the Civil War was inevitable. Colored people made a call for freedom and justice, this was answered by Abraham Lincoln, even if for his own personal motives. The country was not left in shambles after his presidency. Furthermore, it was the Confederate Union that fired first upon American soil after 11 states HAD seceded from the union. And, in 2006, Vermont made a case to secede from the union. This failed because of constitutional terms. Therefore, Abe Lincoln was not violating the constitution when he did not allow for secession.

Arguably, his greatest success was the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery and calling for both blacks and whites to share the same freedoms. This was one of the greatest stands for justice in the history of the United States. The most important thing that must be looked to is what President Lincoln stood for, and that is justice. No president has ever been able to show signs of a strong economy after a war. And, few wars have ever been so important as the civil war. Clearly, Abe won the war and won the vote for the African-American populace. There isn't a whole lot to say about Lincoln, but he protected us from foreign invasion, ensured justice for all, and showed the world that Cicero was right. "Freedom oppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered."

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
bones

Pro

bones forfeited this round.
mrmatt505

Con

I seem to not be having the same problems as my opponent and I can write in the argument section. For his round 3 arguments check the comment section.

Now for my arguments.

1) The Civil War WAS absolutely necessary. All of the prominent nations in the world have had a civil war. A civil war is essential because it shows where the nation is as a whole with its policies. Civil wars may be considered bad because of the bloodshed, but they insure freedoms, liberties, and most important justice for the future. I believe that a civil war is a sign of how emotionally motivated a country is. Instead of just sitting back looking at the world with a neutral eye, we have proven that we want to see change for the better. This is why I strongly support the ideas of President Abraham Lincoln and will continue to do so in the future. Whether or not our war was for the reasons that you have stated, they brought about amazing rewards that we are still reaping today.

2) It isn't only the constitution that determines who we are. Today there is only one state in the US that has the right to secession and that is Hawaii. Back then, the states had agreed to Utilitarianism thought of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Keeping the nation together essential to maintain security and sustainability. Abraham Lincoln was not allowing the states to secede because they did not have a strong enough case that would outweigh the nationalistic view of America.

3) "With many thousands of people dead, some land unable to even be used until it had been built up again, an economic recession, the dropping value of the dollar, and trade sanctions against states in the south, and the loss of entire industries that led to higher prices for some goods, how can you say that the country was not in shambles?" - Although these are bad, I will not even contest that, America was NOT in shambles. We were able to maintain our global position and build our nation back up. This was necessary to insure a brighter America for tomorrow, and the brave soldiers from both sides realized this and that is why they fought! That is the reason why anyone picks up arms and goes to war! To procure a better future.

4) "I have no problem with people going after their own personal interests, as long as they play within the rules and don't cheat. The president vows to keep to the Constitution and he should, not change it to how he wants it to be."
No one man could cause all everything to happen, it was his party. But second, I don't see a violation of the constitution because the states came together and agreed to stay together because it was in the best interest of the nation.

5) You claim there is a difference between justice and equality. I couldn't agree with you more. However, equality can only come about when justice is present. It was justice that kept our nation together and justice that has provided us success to this day. Abe was a just man and his policies were just as well. I do not have the wrong interpretation of justice, but if you believe I do, then start a separate debate about it or bring up your own interpretation of justice. I would gladly argue this.

6) Cicero was around thousands of years before the US. He was talking about how any time freedom is fought for, that is is that much stronger in the future.

7) I am not a "true" moderate because there is no such thing. I am a moderate and you are republican in your views. I have no problem with that. My problem is the word "true".

Thanks!
- Matt
Debate Round No. 3
bones

Pro

I was joking about Cicero and you being a ‘true' moderate. Those are different arguments for a different time.

Anyways…if you said the Civil War was necessary, then you need to show why. Your argument seems to be that a civil war happens in all major countries. And since it happens in all major countries, it must happen in ours in order for us to be a major source of prosperity and freedom. And that civil wars end up insuring freedom, justice, and liberties (a.k.a. freedoms) for the future. These things are not attainable without a civil war? Does there have to be people dying in order for there to be order and wealth? What kind of world is that? Does that also mean that if we kill more people than there will be more peace? Why do we not sacrifice people for peace then? Now I know that you do not believe that and so I am asking why aren't you following your logic all the way? Why don't you see that this mentality will promote emotion, no doubt as all wars are very emotional, but it produces death above all things?

If we place our presidents above humanity, we fail ourselves. Too often we think that the government knows what is best for us. No man knows what is best for him, besides himself. If man makes a mistake, then he will change and make better choices the next time. Abraham Lincoln was a man that did not know what was best for everyone. I agree that he had a vast amount of responsibility and that he needed to make decisions, but to say that he knew more about the individual states than the states knew about themselves, sounds as if he were much more elevated than a human. Only if angels are the ruling authority should we totally trust in the government. Lincoln did not know what was best for each of the individual states and should have let them decide for themselves.

I totally agree that people go to war for a better future and I agree that America is better off now than it was 100 or 200 years ago. But we are not as good as we could be because of bad legislation and overall government authority. I don't see exactly how you can say that America was not suffering badly after the Civil War and did nothing to repute any of my claims. I also find it funny the wording that you used, "…and build our nation back up." That goes to say that the nation needed to be built back up and was beat down by a needless war.

I also agree that Lincoln was not the only culprit for the Civil War, and I showed how this was in my earlier debate. I talked about companies and lobbyists and Washington in general. The Congress was to blame as well. I would say Congress and not just say Lincoln's political party. The thing that you seem to forget is that the states agreed to stay together if it was in their best interests. When it wasn't, they had the right to secede and they tried to start a new nation. Lincoln took the communistic approach of caring for the nation as a whole and not letting the people decide what they wanted for themselves. That was what he should have done. This talk of the ‘interest of the nation' sounds vaguely similar to what communist leaders tell their citizens.

Justice does allow for equal treatment of peoples but does not make all people equal. So we agree on this point. I don't think that your view of justice is that off center. But we have to make sure that we are following our logic and that our logic leads where we want to go.
(Sorry about last round…)
mrmatt505

Con

You are 100% correct in saying that " ... civil war happens in all major countries. And since it happens in all major countries, it must happen in ours in order for us to be a major source of prosperity and freedom. And that civil wars end up insuring freedom, justice, and liberties (a.k.a. freedoms) for the future." No, there is no other way of procuring these without a civil war. When men and women fight for something, they hold it more dear to their hearts. Their honor and image live on forever in the minds of people such as ourselves. Moreover, blood runs thicker than water, this applies in more than one sense. The water of diplomacy works internationally, but can never suffice domestically. I believe that civil wars are necessary to ensure LESS blood shed in the future. It may seem somewhat backwards, but there are no other situations in history where there has not been a civil uprising. If you present Ghandi, there was blood spilled, and there was a confrontation between persons and government. It was the only way to allow for freedoms.

Onto your second point, there is a fallacy in your logic. It was never stated that anyone on the federal level knew what was best for the individual states. Only that they knew what was best for the nation as a whole. That is why compromise was made after the war.

WE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY - I will never argue that we should. It is good to question actions. But to state that Abe Lincoln was a bad president because of his actions, is unjust. He did what he thought to be right. It were his actions that led to the world we see today. His actions procured freedom for black people along with the help of others.

America suffered immediately after the civil war. I do not look to the shallow short term situations but rather to the important long term circumstances. I believe that we should see Abe Lincoln as one of the greater presidents of all time.

You state, "The thing that you seem to forget is that the states agreed to stay together if it was in their best interests. When it wasn't, they had the right to secede and they tried to start a new nation." So you have valued individual state interests over human rights and the interests of enslaved persons. The south was occupied with a large amount of slaves, and then there were the people against slavery in the south. The majority of the southern population was against the confederacy and the interest of the majority was to be free. Therefore states interests were taken into consideration.

I will continue to advocate justice. Justice is supreme and it is only just to allow all peoples to be free and equal. Equality does not mean "1984" or "Brave New World". Equality means equal opportunity and allowing for people to pursue their own lives.
Debate Round No. 4
bones

Pro

A civil uprising and a civil war are two different things. Gandhi rebuked Indians that used violence to advocate freedom from the British. He understood that there should be no bloodshed for peace and freedom. Civil wars are not necessary at all. This is nothing less than what a war mongrel would say. I think that it is just for the slaves to be free. Lincoln just made the wrong decision in how to deal with that. Slavery would have been eliminated in the few short years because of new inventions in slave industries. You are so concerned with the long term. In the long term, the states would have been better off without a civil war. They would have been better off if they were able to make their own decisions instead of federal mandates. The federal government getting in the states' affairs again. The same way that abortion could be defeated would be to let the states decide on the mandates. Not have the federal government do it. Let the people decide. Something else I find interesting is that in all the major civil wars that you are talking or, I bet, thinking about, the sect seceding was the victor. The people seceding from the government in charge was the group that was in the right and was the group that just wanted to decide things for themselves and make their own decisions, even if those decisions were not always right.

There was no compromise. The South lost and the North won. That is what happened. Abraham Lincoln was saying that he knew what was best for the states, when he made federal mandates that were imposed on the states. These were again unfunded mandates. Without the industry that the slaves brought in, in the short term, the states suffered massive recessions. The people in those states suffered greatly, whether they were for or against slavery. ‘

You can't say that saying that judging Lincoln on his actions is an unjust way to judge him. It is the only way. We can argue over whether his actions were just, which is what we are attempting to do, but his ‘justness' is only described by his action. It doesn't matter if people do what they think is right if it is still wrong. Good intentions are not good enough. He has to know how to run the country correctly in order to be a good president. If you look around at the world today, we are in a 9 trillion dollar debt, have the weakest currency we have ever had, are in a recession, have troops out across the world advocating your so called ‘civil wars', which have to happen, yet the war in Iraq is not necessary to hold up freedoms for those people. You are the one who needs to follow their logic. You claim that civil war and bloodshed is necessary but are against the civil war in Iraq. Yes I know that is not why we went in there, but nevertheless, it is still a civil war against the dictatorial government of that country.

States are closer to the people they represent. They can make more informed decisions about what their constituents want, than can the federal government. I am more concerned with states than with the national government, because the states know what is better for them than do people all the way in Washington. And even if they make wrong decisions, let them make wrong decisions. Parents do this all the time with kids. They let them make the wrong decision, so that it is not made again.

Justice is what we all should be advocating for. We just seem to disagree on how that is best attained. Hopefully we both have a better understanding of each other's position and see that which one more closely reflects justice.

Thanks, good luck
mrmatt505

Con

"A civil uprising and a civil war are two different things. Gandhi rebuked Indians that used violence to advocate freedom from the British. He understood that there should be no bloodshed for peace and freedom. Civil wars are not necessary at all."

Yet blood was still spilled upon the ground. Once the people had seen this, they retaliated. Not with weapons, because they would have lost that fight, but rather through politics. But it is because blood poured out onto the ground that they defended their freedom with more ferocity than would have otherwise. Also, the circumstances are different. In that we had an actual civil war where the government split. In India, it was people against government. But they are still parallel situations showing that some form of war must occur. For India, it was peaceful because of the circumstances. In America, the circumstances only showed all out war.

"Slavery would have been eliminated in the few short years because of new inventions in slave industries. You are so concerned with the long term. In the long term, the states would have been better off without a civil war."

This is where our views differ the most. Slavery would not have been abolished otherwise. Freedom is a fickle fiend and can only be procured when fought for. Without the civil war, slavery would still exist today because the southern plantation owners and slave owners made it known that they were going to continue "breeding" slaves for years to come. Agriculture was and still primarily is how the south operates today. It was because of the demand for labor that technological innovations came about. After the slaves had been free.

It would not have been just for Abraham Lincoln to allow southern states to secede from the union to continue accommodating slavery and violating universal human rights. Martin Luther King Junior once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Abe should not and could not have allowed this injustice to happen any longer.

You go on to conceded that the recession was short term. However you did not talk on the long term which I have proven time and time again was an excellent reward. In the long term, Abe's actions were just and wise.

The states were only close to the people that were property and slave owners. The slaves themselves were treated horribly. Slavery should have been repudiated years before it ever began. Lincoln made bold and just actions to free them so that the black community of today's world could also be free. I evaluate Lincoln by his actions and have deemed him and his actions moral and just.

"Parents do this all the time with kids. They let them make the wrong decision, so that it is not made again. "

This has and will never work for spoiled children. Allowing a child to take and beat his peers without ramifications justifies his actions making him even more mischievous when he has grown.

I too hope that we have come to a better understanding. I will still state that Honest Abe was just in what he did.

Thanks!
- Matt
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
Sorry to the Affirmative, but I was a biased judge on the side of the negative because YOU SHOULDN'T CRITICIZE A PRESIDENT!!! If you think you can do better, then get in there and do it! If not then leave them alone. Not that anyone is perfect, but obviously he did something right to become President.
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Derek,
Explain how it is then that Japan suffered a worse recession than the US? Oil shocks part of that, or was it again, bad monetary policy and bubbles in market created by a central bank? Economics just shows that there is a lot of relativity in life. But there are eternal truths, and for these we can make right decisions and take logical stances. I presented an argument, I just don't go step by step of what the last person said. I like for the debates to flow, and not just be attacking single point by single point. What I'm trying to show is that the entire philosophy or logic of the cause doesn't make that much sense when followed to its end.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
McCoy,
You don't seem to present an argument.
I also did economics at varsity, but didn't continue past first year as it became clear that things were just guessed at rather than being particularly understood.

Doubtless there are inaccuracies in the calculation of inflation.
Doubtless various people lie.
Doubtless there are arguments for using a gold standard (and many against).

However, as with all understanding of truth in the real world, one believes things based on probability.
Do you believe that the existence of oil shocks is in doubt?
For me it was a clear and major thing. Much smaller fuel-efficient Japanese cars suddenly made huge inroads into the American marketplace. Energy conservation was on everyone's lips. People stopped generating electricity from oil. People tightened their belts.
This isn't theory.

In the end, Jimmy Carter, basically faultless, was blamed by many for the downturn in the economy - actually caused by OPEC more than doubling the price of their oil.
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Derek,
You are trying to use math in economics. It doesn't work. They "judge" inflation by either CPI, PPI, GDP Deflator, etc. These only take a select number of goods and compare them with today's prices. Also the people that judge inflation have an incentive to lie about the numbers. The monetary policy that the government has insituted needs confidence by the American public. The public would have confidence if the government used correct monetary policy. Instead they have to instill false confidence by lying about inflation. Also how do you measure inflation in mathematical terms with a graph. There is no exact measure that shows how much the dollar was devalued. What we did was make more fiat money than we should have because we had nothing as a base for the currency. That is why we need a gold standard. That is why the 1980 recession happened. I totally dismiss the notion that you can use mathematics in economics.
Thanks
(I'm a junior economics major/political science/pre-law. That is why I love debating economics. ;)
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Bones (McCoy?)
When people start arguing with dictionary definitions, I begin to wonder if they are willing to accept anything they haven't said themselves.
Still, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You say "The recession was caused by the American currency being davalued, thus oil cost more."

As I said, the $104/barrel figure is inflation adjusted, i.e. $104 in today's dollars.
If the USD had halved, or quartered in value back then, the figure would remain the same.
It represents a doubling in cost in under two years (It had been $48/barrel in 1978).
How much was the USD devalued by?
Devaluing the USD will have made exacerbated the rescession, but as I said, the effect on all other western countries was much the same. The common factor?
OPEC's oil price.

I think you need to see what the graph looks like:
http://www.inflationdata.com...

"A million dollars means nothing to you if you are in the dessert"
Best you stay out of of the dessert then ;-)

Cheers
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Derek.Gunn,

Again, definitions are just supply-side definitions. Those are just Keynsian definitions flipped upside down. All they focu on is growth and they actually ignore inflation when defining a recession. And again, the recession started before January in 1980. CAusation does not equal correlation. There was a third or fourth or even fifth factors that led to the recession. Recessions are not bad things, though we are so afraid to admit that we are in one. They filter out the companies that are doing bad and allow for more creativity to come out of them. The inflation caused the recession of 1980. The recession was caused by the American currency being davalued, thus oil cost more. Quantity theory of Money, more dollars we have, the higher the prices will be. The inflation was attributed to to 1973, when we went off the gold standard. This gave the Feds ultimate control over our country almost, I believe. The Feds then began fueling more currency into the market to feed GDP growth. Banks with low interest rates gave into making bad loans. Finally the devaluation of the currency, aka inflation, caused prices to rise, even and especially the price of oil. Oil is a major good and very easily affected by inflation. That is what caused the recession. The Feds. The caused inflation, but they were trying to grow the technology industry, especially the new computers being made. They needed to let the market decide how many PC's should have been sold. They still think that money makes you better off, just like so many today. A million dollars means nothing to you if you are in the dessert. A gallon of water will be worth the money. We don't want money, we want what money buys, and when we make fake money, we will end up losing more than we gained.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Bones,
The New Oxford defines Inflation as:
"the general increase in prices and the fall in purchasing value of money."

Of course, these are two sides of the same coin. ;-)
When one thinks about it, the etymology of "inflation" is obvious.

The New Oxford defines recession as:
"A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters."

Certainly stagnation is not recession. Still, as I said, some people call it this.

Jimmy Carter was president form 1977 until the beginning of 1981.
There was a recession from January to July 1980.
This immediately followed the highest ever price of oil at $104/barrel (inflation adjusted) in December 1979.

What is your explanation for this recession if not due to the price of oil?
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Ironduke,

There was an easy way to not go to war. Don't have Congress declare war and let the South secede. I mentioned the Congress several times in my debates by the way and blamed Congress as much as they needed to be blamed. I hate slavery and that is not what this debate was about. It was how there was a better way to handle the slave issue than how Lincoln did. and wherever you got the idea of the old, fashioned South is preposterous. The South was advancing with new technology, just as the North was. This technology was also cheaper labor than the slaves, which would have been the reason that the slaves would have been freed. They were not going to be worth enough to keep as slaves.
Posted by bones 9 years ago
bones
Again, you have to look at why companies are raising prices. Inflation is not rising prices. Inflation is devaluation of the currency. This is why why prices rise. The rise because of inflation. Inflation isn't the actual prices rising. so your logic is that companies raise prices so that they will have less employees, so that less people will buy thier product. Or could it be that companies raise prices because there is more demand for it and once that demand is reached, prices will stabilize. I do agree that inflation causes recessions, but you didn't define inflation correctly. You also said that stagnation s how we define a recession. you are again wrong in this. We can't define recessions by growth in GDP, stagnation is when GDP doesn't grow or grows minimally. We would never be in recessions of that was the case and I think we both agree that we have had recessions. It seems that you fall into the trap that politicians weave, called Supply-side Economics.
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
There was no way to avoid the war. There were two eras clashing in your Civil War. One was the New fashioned, industrialized North, and the other was the Older fashioned, slave labouring South. As Virgil, or someone said once, "Deep are the wounds civil strife inflicts" Abraham Lincoln took the side that declared all men to be equal, which is the background of your Constitution. There was no ohter way to go as president. And you realize that there was a Senate back then.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
Derek.Gunn
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by verbivore 9 years ago
verbivore
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dixielover 9 years ago
dixielover
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MitsyPoodle 9 years ago
MitsyPoodle
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bones 9 years ago
bones
bonesmrmatt505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30