The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Anonymous
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Bush used classic bait-and-switch manipulation to get our country into Iraq

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,159 times Debate No: 3192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

I will present basic steps in bait-and-switch sales tactics, followed by the corresponding action on the Bush Administration.

First, the salesman must have a desire to sell a product.
-Bush's desire to sell the "War on Terror" is nothing short of legend.

The salesman uses fraudulent means (bait) to get the customer into the store, with no intention of holding his/her original promise. This usually takes the form of a sale of some sort, with the marketing of a product that is very cheap and attractive to the buyer but unprofitable for the seller.
-Bush's fraudulent bait was WMD and Hussein's support of Al Qaeda. Both of these bait items turned to be unprofitable, and the switch was made to a more profitable approach.

Next, the salesman cuts loose the bait (tells the customer they have no more of those left, for example) and switches the customer over to a more expensive, more profitable item that the salesman REALLY wishes to sell.
-Once WMD and Hussein's Al Qaeda ties turned up no leads, Bush switched us over to the current "Spreadin' Freedom" line. We are now there to encourage democracy and freedom, instead of protecting ourselves from WMD and cutting off funding of terrorism.

The coercive nature of bait-and-switch is two-fold. First, the customer has sustained "sunk costs" by wasting gas, time etc. to get to the store and secure the purchase of the cheap sale item. Second, the customer has a psychological yearning to not leave empty handed, after already convincing himself/herself that they will have the item.
-Our sunk costs were colossal, and this was a very good strategy indeed. Troops lives, countless billions of dollars. Imagine the axe that would have fallen on politicians who supported the war and spent all this money and lost all these lives, just to have to concede that it was one big mistake and they got conned by the Bush Administration. They would have faced fatal scrutiny from the press, their peers etc. and probably would not have gotten re-elected. As for the psychological effect, this took its form within the voters. Republican voters in particular had been supporting the war from the beginning, and rushed right in. They have a huge vested interest in seeing it through and no matter what happens they will never be able to admit they were wrong, without facing (percieved) humiliation. The Democrats are going to get elected this November, pull out of Iraq, and take the fall for ending this disaster without the Republicans having to get their hands any dirtier than they already are with it.

I posted this debate because I'm getting really sick of people saying "we may not have done the right thing going in there, but we need to do the right thing and finish what we started".

Wrong.

What we started was wrong, and it doesn't get any righter to switch the reasoning and continue doing the wrong thing. It makes no logical sense for us, after discovering the wrongful nature of our actions, to perpetuate them by making a different excuse for it. I'll leave the other laundry list of reasons for getting out of Iraq for another debate (unless my opponent brings them up first).
Anonymous

Con

Fraud? What fraud? CNN announced for like 3 months that we were going into Iraq to look for WMD's...geesh how dumb can you be? You really think Iraq didn't have them? I suppose you think Korea isn't developing their nukes either? Iraq is a sandy place full of holes and caves you think they didn't have time to move/hide their WMD?

Maybe Bush did have financial motives in going to IRaq? Quite frankly, so what? Everything any government has ever done has been out of financial motives, including and especially the American government. Is it possible maybe that despite his desire to get richer, he also saw the good side of it too? Everyone is like, YEAH lets go get those terrorists, then all of a sudden..."oh...you meant that kind of war"? I know you are gonna say we were only supposed to hit afghanistan, but afghanistan is only one of the many countries over there that provides support and shelter for terrorists.

Is Bush a jerk? Yes. IS he any worste than most of our presidents have been? No. He is a horrible public speeker, but he is still a genius or he wouldn't have come close to office. He doesn't respond hatefully to criticism, instead he basically ignores it, or tells you to screw off, you aren't president, he is. Nobody talks about all the good we have done in Iraq, or all that Bush has been doing to help Africa also. Most people who say they hate him start to stammer when I just ask "why" as they try to remember how their parents/friends explained to them why he is a jerk. He is just another rich guy, making more money and trying to do his job, and you guys need to stop hating, which I imagine you will when you realize how much these people hated us before we went to Iraq that is why they kept coming over here and blowing stuff up.

If he did bait and switch, Im glad. Sadaam is dead, Osama is running scared, and we have a stronghold in the middle east. If we don't play Rome, someone else will inevitably, and that someone else may just be someone who hates us like they hate us.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Your only point worth addressing is that you refute the fraud part because they could have hid them. For the rest of your argument, you seem to forget what my thesis is and why you are refuting it. You are actually not refuting my thesis, because you seem to agree with it "If he did bait and switch, Im glad". I guess you don't really HAVE to refute my thesis per se because people don't vote on how good your argument is anyway. All the words we are writing in this box have very little net effect on the votes, compared to simply taking the pro or con stance on the title.

As to your only point, anonymous, the fact still remains that we did not find WMD. I realize that there could exist a huge arsenal of nuclear warheads and plasma rifles in some ditch somewhere in the Iraq desert, but what do you propose we do? Stay there FOREVER so that they never get to use them? How much is 720 Million dollars a day, indexed to inflation, over the next 50-100 years? If Saddam's regime was still in power, we would at least have the benefit of knowing that there was a security force keeping those weapons out of the hands of terrorists. If those weapons are lying in the sand right now, who do you actually think is going to unearth them now? There is only one organization that is going to find them, and it is not headed by President Bush - I assure you. If we haven't found the WMD by now, after 5 years, then our chances of finding them have already been reduced to nill.

Your argument rests on the fact that Saddam Hussein may have used the WMD or given them to someone that could have. This argument is absolutely absurd. If hussein developed and distributed these weapons he would be inviting a massive retalitory nuclear strike against his country. What kind of logic fails to take this into account? How could you possibly reasonably suggest that Saddam Hussein would be stupid enough to take those weapons and A) use them against us, incurring a massive nuclear retalitory strike or B) give them away to someone who would use them who we could reasonably connect BACK to him and again, incurring a retaliation that would overwhelm his national defense (as we did in the early 90's) and hold him accountable? I just don't see any way in which he would logically be inclined to provoke our gigantic military into invading and conquering Iraq AGAIN. Hussein was simply the scapegoat to justify the Bush regime's war, and they had him executed swiftly to make sure he didn't get a chance to tell the world his side of the story.

I would also point out that by the turn of the next century, most countries will most likely have developed nuclear capabilities. Our actions today are showing these future nuke holders how we will react to them developing nuclear technology. Either we can show them that our countries can exist peacefully, or we are going to fall, through nuclear war, as more and more countries begin to develop power and hatred for us. We cannot hope to defend ourselves militarily against a planet full of nuclear armed armies, and we must show them that we are not going to be invading and occupying everyone that develops themselves technologically. Nukes are a form of technology that naturally develops over time when science is allowed to evolve, and we cannot legislate it away, intimidate it away, police it away etc.

There are a handful of ways in which our country (or humanity in general) can be annihilated in one fell swoop. Yellowstone national park caldera erupts every few milion years or so, we get hit by a large meteorite every once in a while, large earthquakes, virus, flood, tsunami, or even an ice age. Over the last 500 million years, scientists have uncovered 10 major extinction events, due to one of these causes. But all of the chances of all of these events put together, does not even come close to the chances of a nuclear war wiping us out in the relatively near future. Every century, the chances are about 1 in 5,000,000 that a major extinction event will occur, but I would say that the chances of a nuclear disaster, over the next century or two, will be no better than the flip of a coin. I don't believe we are taking the best action to secure the prosperity of our race in the long run.
Anonymous

Con

"All the words we are writing in this box have very little net effect on the votes, compared to simply taking the pro or con stance on the title."

I assume you say this because you are the type of person who does not read entire posts before responding or voting?

Anyways, you used like 7 paragraphs to say, "Bush used bait and switch"

I used 4 to say "I doubt it, and if he did, so what".

What more do you want?

"Your argument rests on the fact that Saddam Hussein may have used the WMD or given them to someone that could have. This argument is absolutely absurd. If hussein developed and distributed these weapons he would be inviting a massive retalitory nuclear strike against his country"

Dur da DUR DUH!!! That is why he would hide them or send them away at the first sign of us coming to check it out. And yet, somehow you think that statement proves Sadaam had no WMD. Wow...THis is an area where a Nuclear missile can be bought on the black market for 20 million dollars. Sadaam Hussein is (was) a terrorist, and you are telling me that he didn't have a stockpile? If we were to nike them right now, I guarentee the last thing they would do is launch back at us, and wed be like WTF???? Because too many people are jumping on your bandwagon. You are doing like every other Liberal who is tired of having a republican leader; you are capitalizing on peoples stupidity. George Bush never directly answers people's questions because people are stupid. If the thirteen colonies had adapted todays common attitude bout Iraq we would all be speaking British or german, depending on that whole World war 2 thing, which by the way nobody wanted to enter that either, and if we hadnt...

anyways, we cant kill terrorism, but we can fight it. I like Bush because he told you all to go F yourselves, "Im president, not you".
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

Anonymous, I have already tried to get you to focus on the title of this debate, and I have failed. Please re-read the title, and then provide evidence that Bush did NOT use bait and switch. I see very well that you don't care whether he did or not, but that is not relevent. This debate is about whether or not he did in fact decieve the american people into supporting this war. Your only valid point up until now is that Saddam actually did have WMD, which is not supported by the evidence that the American people have recieved over the last 5 years. If there were any evidence AT ALL of WMD, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly would be having an orgasm over it and it would be all over the news as if Russian Panzers were rolling on Canada, so it is pretty logical to assume that there were no WMD. PLEASE USE YOUR LAST ROUND TO REFUTE THE TITLE
Anonymous

Con

Pffffffftttttttttttttt...

Whatever BANDWAGONERS you guys would all suck as president and if you had had the same stuff to deal with what wold you have done. It is going to take another 9/11 for you to wake up...again, and then another 2 years later you'll be like ...dude why are we fighting...end of debate I dont care vote for him you all are dumb on this site anyways.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
your emotional ad hominem displays are evidence enough of your "intentions".

P.S. if the voters didn't read this debate your votes would have increased, not decreased
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Also, how can you prove someone elses intentions?

He in no way proved that is what happened, he simply explained what bait and switch is and used to title to say he did it because that is what alot of people think and will automatically vote for that without even reading.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
I do get frustrated. I wasn't here. Just wanted to say that.

P.S.- I wasn't whining I was criticising.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Anonymous you might want to stick it out until the end of the debate next time instead of letting your emotions of frustration and resentment get the best of you(helps you out in real life too it turns out!); if you are going to forfiet then do it with grace and admit defeat instead of going out like a chump. There are plenty of honest pro-bush/pro-war people on this site that will vote for you if you make a half-decent argument and don't start whining half way through and give up.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
P.S. I did address your topic you didn't prove that he did do it you just explained what bait and switch is and said he did it. I am no more indirect than you.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
He provided insight on bait and switch. Oooh, did you need such insight? You must be an idiot then.I didnt say Bush was great, I am just saying he isn't any worste than any of our other leaders, in factg we have had much worste. Whatever you all are a bunch of bandwagoners.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
"Anyways, you used like 7 paragraphs to say, 'Bush used bait and switch' -- I used 4 to say 'I doubt it, and if he did, so what'."

Anonymous: Rob used 7 paragraphs to provide insight to the topic of debate. You used 4 to talk about why Bush is great...? Or something? Who knows. The bottom line is that you should stick to the topic of debate, and refute that Bush DIDN'T use bait and switch tactics, instead of saying "so what if he did" because then you're admitting he did and therefore practically forfeiting the entire debate. You should be PROVING that he didn't. Anyway good luck; try to be more on-point next time.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Ooops...posted my argument by accident...meant to add this question.

What should we do then? Say Hillary wins, and she takes us out of iraq, violence out of video games, and fun out of life. What do we do when the next 9/11 happens. Or Iran decides to resume it's nuclear program, confident that we wont return to the middle east? What then? You think because we pull out they are going to hate us less than they do now? All we did with give them another *reason (not really reasons, in case you didnt catch the sarcasm) to say they hate us. And not all of them do. there are plenty of people in Iraq riht now who would say thank you America, and plenty of American soldiers who say "youre welcome". That's America. We are the Roman empire today, so stop trying to act like thats a bad thing or something.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
"All the words we are writing in this box have very little net effect on the votes, compared to simply taking the pro or con stance on the title."

I assume you say this because you are the type of person who does not read entire posts before responding or voting?

Anyways, you used like 7 paragraphs to say, "Bush used bait and switch"

I used 4 to say "I doubt it, and if he did, so what".

What more do you want?

"Your argument rests on the fact that Saddam Hussein may have used the WMD or given them to someone that could have. This argument is absolutely absurd. If hussein developed and distributed these weapons he would be inviting a massive retalitory nuclear strike against his country"

Dur da DUR DUH!!! That is why he would hide them or send them away at the first sign of us coming to check it out. And yet, somehow you think that statement proves Sadaam had no WMD. Wow...THis is an area where a Nuclear missile can be bought on the black market for 20 million dollars. Sadaam Hussein is (was) a terrorist, and you are telling me that he didn't have a stockpile? If we were to nike them right now, I guarentee the last thing they would do is launch back at us, and wed be like WTF???? Because too many people are jumping on your bandwagon. You are doing like every other Liberal who is tired of having a republican leader; you are capitalizing on peoples stupidity. George Bush never directly answers people's questions because people are stupid. If the thirteen colonies had adapted todays common attitude bout Iraq we would all be speaking British or german, depending on that whole World war 2 thing, which by the way nobody wanted to enter that either, and if we hadnt...

anyways, we cant kill terrorism, but we can fight it. I like Bush because he told you all to go F yourselves, "Im president, not you".
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 
Vote Placed by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Rob1BillionAnonymousTied
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