The Instigator
policydebategod
Con (against)
Winning
73 Points
The Contender
mrpresident
Pro (for)
Losing
70 Points

George Bush is a good president.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,142 times Debate No: 424
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (41)

 

policydebategod

Con

George Bush has destroyed our nation.
1. He implimented No Child Left Behind, overcrowding our good schools and still leaving our bad schools to be bad.
2. He created the Iraq War for the purpose of finding weapons of mass destruction, stopping terrorism, and promoting democracy. They vote, they have no WMDs, and terrorism will NEVER be stopped, and Iraq has nothing to do with it.
3. He lowered out economy significantly, lower than most African nations.
4. He raised gas prices, making transport difficult.
5. He created the Patriot Act, making our constitution invalid and thereby creating a catalyst to destroy our entire constitution. If the terrorists threaten our free speech, then we will revoke that, etc. Who is to say that we will get rid of freedom of religion and convert everybody into muslims after the next 9/11.
6. He failed to do ONE good thing for America.
mrpresident

Pro

As on my profile, I say that I generally support Bush. Not all of his policies are good ones. Anyways, here's the argument

1. The No Child Left Behind act is a gross overextension of federal power, and I'm against it because it makes teachers conform their instruction to teaching the test and not really teaching what needs to be taught.

2. Soooo...are you against the Iraq War? As a matter of fact, we did find weapons of mass destruction buried in sand dunes all over Iraq. And strangely, Syria all of a sudden had these weapons right after we invaded... I wonder if Saddam had anything to do with it? He had twice tried to build a nuclear weapoms program. The Israelis stopped him the first time, in 1983, and we destroyed the facility again in 1991. The British intelligence agency, MI5, had passed us information that Saddam was trying to aquire yellowcake, a needed component for building nuclear weapons, long before we invaded. He had used poison gas on his own people in the past, and while fighting the Iranians. He launched Scud missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War, and they could have been tipped with chemical ot biological warheads. Thankfully, they were not. But you're right, terrorism can't be stopped, but only because we haven't noticed the cause. Terrorism is the limbs that we're hacking at. Islam is the roots.

3. Lowered our economy more than some African nations? Where did you get that? A cereal box? Our combined economy is 13.13 TRILLION dollars. The entire COMBINED GDP of Africa is only 2.5 trillion. I don't even need to speak on this.

4. Actually, Bush has no control over gas prices. He's a president, not a Saudi oilman, or a refinery owner. Prices are being manipulated by OPEC, making us think there's less oil than there really is. Bush's friends in the oil industry may be partially to blame, however. Bush's involvement is slim to none.

5. The Constitution is still in effect. If you live in a red state, you may notice this, but if you live in a blue state, it may seem so. The PATRIOT Act expanded government powers to better counteract terrorism. Only people who are suspect have to fear of it. You are only targeted if you match a specific profile of behavior. (not racial, but maybe we should) For instance, e-mials can be searched if they have a specific word composition of select words targeted for scrutiny by Homeland Security. Financial records can be traced if you make donations to suspect organizations. Any law abiding citizen should have no reason to fear this or hide from it. If you do, it only makes you seem suspect. And freedom of religion is a foundation of this country. There can be no backsliding of that without abandoning America. And exactly why would the government want to convert us to Islam? That's surrender. That's the terrorist's goal. Destroy America and bring the world under an Islamic caliphate. Why, exactly, do you believe they'd do that?

6. Failed to do one good thing for America, huh? That's simply a matter of opinion, but I'd be inclined to say that taking the fight to the terrorists and funneling them to Iraq, instead of fighting them here is more than a good thing. Bush's tax cuts have stimulated the economy, largely responsible for the record breaking stock market growth. Though recession is about to hit, that was a good thing. The border fence was a good thing, even if his calls to legalize the existing criminal aliens wasn't. You're projecting on what you think, not what really is.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Con

As on my profile, I say that I generally support Bush. Not all of his policies are good ones. Anyways, here's the argument

1. He conceeds my point on No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behiond overcrowds good schools, making the good schools medicore schools and the bad schools stay the same. The NCLB Act could be done differemtly simply by regulating funding different or some other method. Point Blank: He conceeds NCLB.

2. Opponent- As a matter of fact, we did find weapons of mass destruction buried in sand dunes all over Iraq.
+ Can you show some proof?
Heres proof saying we found no WMDs.
http://www.cnn.com... (2005)

Opponent - And strangely, Syria all of a sudden had these weapons right after we invaded... I wonder if Saddam had anything to do with it?
+ So...a good leader invades a nation and kils thousands of Americans from speculation. If they did/do have WMDs, I don't see what the Iraq War could have done to help.

Opponent - He had twice tried to build a nuclear weapoms program. The Israelis stopped him the first time, in 1983, and we destroyed the facility again in 1991. The British intelligence agency, MI5, had passed us information that Saddam was trying to aquire yellowcake, a needed component for building nuclear weapons, long before we invaded.
+ This was 16 years ago. If they had WMDs 16 years ago, then why didn't they use them? This is more speculation proven wrong. In debate we call this non unique. If they've had nukes for 16 years what has been stopping them from using them?

Opponent-He had used poison gas on his own people in the past, and while fighting the Iranians.
+ Why is it American responsibility to fight back? We did not help in Darfur or Rwanda. I don't see why invading Iraq is suddenly so important.

Opponent- He launched Scud missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War, and they could have been tipped with chemical ot biological warheads. Thankfully, they were not. But you're right, terrorism can't be stopped, but only because we haven't noticed the cause. Terrorism is the limbs that we're hacking at. Islam is the roots.
+ That is so incredibly racist. We can't invade countries because of what the people there (not the govt.) have done. That solution can never work. You literaly said that we need to hack at Islam, the roots. You are promoting ethnic cleansing. You are saying that decades ago they could have possibly bombed somebody. Why should we attack them for that? That makes NO sense!

3. Opponent- Lowered our economy more than some African nations? Where did you get that? A cereal box? Our combined economy is 13.13 TRILLION dollars. The entire COMBINED GDP of Africa is only 2.5 trillion. I don't even need to speak on this.
+ Use any currency converter (http://www.xe.com...) to find that our dollar is low. Besides, during Bush's 8 years the dollar dropped signofocantly. We used to be greater than the Euro and the ONLY reason we are not a poor nation is because the USD is the premier currency. Even if you won't conceed that were lower than most African nations, you have to admit the USDdropped in 8 years.
Maybe, this was an exaggeration, but the economy is still lowered.

4. Opponent- Actually, Bush has no control over gas prices. He's a president, not a Saudi oilman, or a refinery owner. Bush's friends in the oil industry may be partially to blame, however. Bush's involvement is slim to none.
+ I did not say that Bush is purposely raising oil prices. [More speculation] During Bush's 8 years, the gas prices went up significantly. Clinton took sveral measures to stop the raisng of oil prices. Bush did not even make ONE initiative. He just sat there and let them rise.

Opponent- Prices are being manipulated by OPEC, making us think there's less oil than there really is.
+ Proof or speculation? I guess the latter.

5. Opponent- The Constitution is still in effect. If you live in a red state, you may notice this, but if you live in a blue state, it may seem so...
+ How ridiculous! Any patriot would see that our constitution is being destroyed. When will it stop? What is they repeal freedom of speech, or religion due to the terrorists? You can't just allow terrorists to destroy our constitution. I'm not a terrorist but I am a patriot who can tell that our constitution was deliberately altered. They are allowed to search property and person without warrants, monitor our technology without warrants, and put us in prison iundefinitely without a trial. And you say that we have nothing to fear. Bush, who signed this into law, is more of a threat to America that the terrorists.

Opponent- You are only targeted if you match a specific profile of behavior. (not racial, but maybe we should)
+ More racism!
Opponent- If you do, it only makes you seem suspect. And freedom of religion is a foundation of this country.
+ Yes. Because warrants and a jury are not?

Opponent- There can be no backsliding of that without abandoning America. And exactly why would the government want to convert us to Islam? That's surrender. That's the terrorist's goal. Destroy America and bring the world under an Islamic caliphate. Why, exactly, do you believe they'd do that?
+ They repealed warrants and trials for certain individuals. Who knows what they'll do next to "stop" the terrorists.

6. Opponent- Failed to do one good thing for America, huh? That's simply a matter of opinion, but I'd be inclined to say that taking the fight to the terrorists and funneling them to Iraq, instead of fighting them here is more than a good thing.
+ A few websites stating that there is no link between Al - Qaeda, or other terrorist organizations, and Iraq (there wer 26,100,000 results:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Opponent- Bush's tax cuts have stimulated the economy, largely responsible for the record breaking stock market growth. Though recession is about to hit, that was a good thing.
+ Show me one positive increase in the economy that Bush caused (not inflation induced).

Opponent- The border fence was a good thing, even if his calls to legalize the existing criminal aliens wasn't...
+ The border fence was never put up in the first place.
The amnesty law from Senator McCain was never passed. If you're going to argue don't make up fake events. And if you count the picket fence as the border fence we have now, you obviously dont understand that illegal immigration is still hapening.

+ Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.
Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005

+The Bush administration's budget for the 2006 fiscal year cut non-defense discretionary spending, including education, veteran's health care, law enforcement, and environmental protections. Funding for the Iraq war, however, was recently increased.
Source: Washington Post

+In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000 Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor.
Source : USA Today

Sorry about the length. Most of it is his.
mrpresident

Pro

1. He conceeds my point on No Child Left Behind.
-Wrong. I conceded that I thought it was a bad idea, but not for the same reasons. The NCLB Act was government moving in to fix a problem. But governmet is the problem, so it cannot be a solution. Schools get run down because of general clumsiness in funding that is inherent of all governmet. Private interests are much better money appropriators.

2. No proof of WMDs.
-Wrong. Evidence is strong. Though the weapons were mostly outdated, as is the arsenal of most Third World dictators, they were still very dangerous and capable of producing casualties similar to or greater than 9/11.

http://www.iris.org.il...

http://www.foxnews.com...

http://mensnewsdaily.com...

3.Speculation with Syria.
-Be careful who you accuse of speculation. YOU are the one who made the gross exaggerations, remember? Syria DID suddenly pop up with a weapons stockpile right after we invaded.

http://www.2la.org...

4. Nuclear weapons.
-Saddam Hussein had intentions to use the nukes against Iran and Israel, if his grudes are to be held to him. The only reason he didn't is because we kept delaying him, destryoing his reactors, and costing him a lot of money. That's why he never used them. We wouldn't let him. He tried in '83 and '91, and tried to build it in secret, as I confirmed with the yellowcake incident. You're argument is the speculative one, and the mark of someone who does little research into what his opponent said.

5. Why is it American responsibility to fight back? We did not help in Darfur or Rwanda. I don't see why invading Iraq is suddenly so important.
-First of all, Darfur and Rwanda have nothing to do with Iraq. It's a poor comparison, truthfully. Although I do regret America not doing it's job and stopping these atrocities, I don't regret allowing nukes into the hands of crazed fascistic dictators. They pose a threat to America AND her allies. That is enough reason.

6.He launched Scud missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War, and they could have been tipped with chemical ot biological warheads. Thankfully, they were not. But you're right, terrorism can't be stopped, but only because we haven't noticed the cause. Terrorism is the limbs that we're hacking at. Islam is the roots.
- Islam is not a race. Good job with that, Elmer Fudd. It's actually a religion, and you can't promote ethnic cleansing against something that spans all races and continents. I do not call for this, so you would do well to watch what words you put into my mouth. It's a religion whose verses are used as marching orders by every terrorist we fight. There muct be some connection. And I know there is. How, you say? Well, I've read their holy book, the Koran. Have you? If not, you have no place arguing this with me.

7.Economy.
-Actually, no African nation has a more powerful currency than us. I just checked it. The only nations with a more powerful currency are Bahrain, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Malta, Omar, the UK, and the Euro. No African nations among them. Yes, the dollar has dropped. Yes the economy is weakening. But this is all a natural process of the free market. The economy goes through ups and downs, recessions and booms. The dollar's value falls, everyone with a more powerful currency comes to buy cheap, top notch American goods. That's what keeps the economy rolling until the next economic boom. The Euro has supremacy over the dollar, but it will soon pass. The Euro runs off the collective capital of all the participating European states. Their spending patterns and projections of growth will doom their currency in time. Then the dollar will become more powerful again.

8.He raised gas prices, making transport difficult.
-That is what you said. If you do not mean that, be more clear with your bumbling statements. Bush didn't put price controls on the oil industry because Bush is a businessman. he know that price controls are more damaging than the actual rising prices. When controls are set, you force the supplier to sell for less than the market determines what the commodity is worth. When that happens, they can't keep up with demand because their capital is restricted. This could force many companies out of business, damaging the economy further. Clinton took steps, but the economy suffered as a result. The only good thing he ever did in office was working witht the congressional Republicans to balance the budget. Otherwise, to put it rather crudely, he sucked.

9.Bush, who signed this into law, is more of a threat to America that the terrorists.
-Now, this statement should be the hallmark of your argument, for the reason that's so incomprehensively moronic that it deserves not to be answered. You should be ashamed of yourself. It only seeks to prove how insane you really are. The law only targets SUSPECT individuals, not your everyday, average America. You have nothing to fear because you are not a terrorist. Terrorists have something to fear, because they are terrorists. It keeps and eye on all those organizations that are fronts for terrorist organizations and the men who run them. For instance, the Holy Land Foundation was a found to be a front for the terrorist group Hamas, even though it stated it was raising funds for Palestinian refugees.

10.Bush, who signed this into law, is more of a threat to America that the terrorists.
-Stop playing this stupid card. Please. It insults me. What we know is that the terrorists are Muslim, Middle Eastern males, so they should be picked for special scrutiny. Little old ladies are frisked at the airport because of that stupid and inneficient random screening process. We are more likely to catch terrorists if we target the specific group they tend to come from. This is not racism, but practicality.

11.A few websites stating that there is no link between Al - Qaeda, or other terrorist organizations, and Iraq..
-What does that have to do with him not doing anything good for the country? Iraq didn't need to have connections to al-Qaeda. We said we would fight terrorist everywhere, not just al-Qeada. It is widely known the Saddam gave shelter to terrorists and provided monetary gifts to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

12.The amnesty law from Senator McCain was never passed. If you're going to argue don't make up fake events. And if you count the picket fence as the border fence we have now, you obviously dont understand that illegal immigration is still hapening.
-Remember what I said about words in the mouth? I NEVER said the bill passed. I said Bush supported it. It was a horrible idea, and Bush was wrong to support it. I know illegals still come in. The fence is being put up in some places, but we need more security to stop the bastards. Comprende, amigo?

13.Show me one positive increase in the economy that Bush caused (not inflation induced).
-He it is. Read it and weep.

http://www.cato.org...

14. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions...
-Lastly, the job market is being destroyed by the loss of manufacturing, once the backbone of the American economy, to China and Mexico. It's all due to NAFTA, a Clintonian policy. You quickly learn free trade isn't fair trade. NAFTA is the worst legacy of Clinton's presidency. A war on the middle class, that is.

Sorry about the length. Most of it was mine.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Con

1. I conceded that NCLB thought it was a bad idea, but not for the same reasons.
+ He conceeds the NCLB debate, for whatever reasons he sees fit.

2. Evidence of WMDs is strong. The weapons were mostly outdated.
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
I have more sources and more respectable sources. We all know that there were no WMDs in Iraq. They have not used them. In debate, we call that non unique. If they had WMDs, they would have used them.

3.Speculation with Syria.
-Be careful who you accuse of speculation. YOU are the one who made the gross exaggerations, remember? Syria DID suddenly pop up with a weapons stockpile right after we invaded.
IM NOT SAYING THAT YOU SPECULATED THAT SYRIA HAD WEAPONS. I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF A LINK BETWEEN SYRIA AND IRAQ'S WEAPON SYSTEM!!! You did not even argue that so I win on that there is no correlation between Iraq and Syria's WMD system. If Iraq supposedly had WMDs, which there is no proof for.

4. Nuclear weapons.
-You accuse me of speculation and little research but I noticed that you did not put any websites to support the claim that Iraq tried to use nuclear weapons. Even if any judge thinks they tried to use them, why have not they used them in the 16 year gap from 1991, when they allegedly tried to use them, and now? Because they are not/ were not going to use them.

5. Although I do regret America not doing it's job and stopping these atrocities, I don't regret allowing nukes into the hands of crazed fascistic dictators. They pose a threat to America AND her allies. That is enough reason.
- Once again, there is no proven threat.

6.Terrorism is the limbs that we're hacking at. Islam is the roots...Islam is not a race. It's actually a religion, and you can't promote ethnic cleansing against something that spans all races and continents. It's a religion whose verses are used as marching orders by every terrorist we fight. There must be some connection. And I know there is. How, you say? Well, I've read their holy book, the Koran. Have you? If not, you have no place arguing this with me.
- Actually, I have read their QURAN (not koran). There is a connection between the marching orders of Islam and the terrorists...ARABIC!!! The language they speak is the same. Should we kill all the whites because they speak the same language as the KKK? This concept of religious cleansing for the purpose of stopping terrorists is illogical and morally disgraceful.

7.Economy.
-Actually, no African nation has a more powerful currency than us. Nations with a more powerful currency are Bahrain, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Malta, Omar, the UK, and the Euro. No African nations among them. Yes, the dollar has dropped. Yes the economy is weakening. But this is all a natural process of the free market.
+ Fine. Those nations' dollars were not above us 8 years ago. And you conceed the dollar is weakening. Therefore, I win on the economy issue.
- The dollar will become more powerful again.
+ There is no basis for that statement! The dollar weakened during Bush's term significantly.

8.-Bush didn't put price controls on the oil industry because Bush is a businessman. he know that price controls are more damaging than the actual rising prices. When controls are set, you force the supplier to sell for less than the market determines what the commodity is worth. When that happens, they can't keep up with demand because their capital is restricted.
+ Clinton took steps to save the prices of gasoline and tapped into the emergency oil reserve. Bush did...NOTHING!!! And Americans are expected to be paying $2 more in gasoline in 2 years. Nice job, Bush.

9.-The law only targets SUSPECT individuals, not your everyday, average America. For instance, the Holy Land Foundation was a found to be a front for the terrorist group Hamas, even though it stated it was raising funds for Palestinian refugees.
+ If you are willing to sacrifice the ONLY thing that has kept America what it is today, the Constitution, then let Bush destroy the constitution. The document GETS RID OF TRIALS!!! You failed to answer that. They also dont need warrants anymore!!! These are the principals of America thrown away. Next, why don't we get a dictator to outlaw baseball and apple pie.

10.Bush, who signed this into law, is more of a threat to America that the terrorists.
- What we know is that the terrorists are Muslim, Middle Eastern males, so they should be picked for special scrutiny. This is not racism, but practicality.
+This is ineffiecient b/c there are white and black terrorists as well. Are you conceeding to allow all non-Arabic terrorists free of search?
+ This is obviously racist. They are choosing a group of people and

11. Al Qaeda and Iraq irrelevant
+ The Iraq War cannot and has not started stopping terror.

12.- The fence is being put up in some places, but we need more security to stop the bastards. Comprende, amigo?
+ More racism!!! My oppoent is racist and his view is obviously skewed for that reason!!!
The fence is so small and unpatrolled it only wastes money. Another thing Bush did wrong is waste money on a fence that doesnt work.

13.Show me one positive increase in the economy that Bush caused (not inflation induced).
-He it is. Read it and weep.
+ Soory, the link was unreadable. If the link even worked. You could only find one link.
+ I should not be forced to debate this unreadable point.
IMPORTANT + Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.
Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005
IMPORTANT + In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011.
Source: Washington Post, "Soaring Ceilings," Editorial Board, Nov. 17, 2004.
IMPORTANT + Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of people either working or looking for work—fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988.
Sources: USA Today
14. You quickly learn free trade isn't fair trade. NAFTA is the worst legacy of Clinton's presidency. A war on the middle class, that is.
+ You don't explain this point well enough. Anyway, I crush you on economy.

I PROVED THAT BUSH IS A BAD PRESIDENT!!!
mrpresident

Pro

What are you, like, 12? You scream, insult, and speculate too much. You preoccupy yourself with smashing specific points without concerning the resto of the statement. And you claim victory. Arrogant, to say the least. You can't even argue in a coherent manner. You ask for proof, but offer none yourself back to me.

1.He conceeds the NCLB debate, for whatever reasons he sees fit.
-Whatever. I'll give you SOMETHING that you can claim any amount of victory over. Even if it is won by the apathy of the opponent.

2.If they had WMDs, they would have used them.
-This is not explicitly true. Though Saddam was dictator, he wasn't supid. He made the mistake of launching Scuds against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the First Gulf War, and he recieved a large amount of condemnation for it. It isn't safe for you to reckon with his intentions like you did. Perhaps he believed his chances were better if he simply hid and gave away the weapons rather than used them? He did expect to be tried in the World Court rather than by the Iraqi government, where he knew his chances would be far better in the World Court. Saddam may not have had time. Perhaps we hit him so quickly that he didn't fire anything and just went straight into hiding? Who knows? All we know is that we found plenty of chemical agents in artillery shells and documents confirming he tried to aquire yellowcake from Africa. If you'd look you'd find. Unlike you, I prefer not to get my news from CNN.

3.IM NOT SAYING THAT YOU SPECULATED THAT SYRIA HAD WEAPONS. I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF A LINK BETWEEN SYRIA AND IRAQ'S WEAPON SYSTEM!!! You did not even argue that so I win on that there is no correlation between Iraq and Syria's WMD system. If Iraq supposedly had WMDs, which there is no proof for.
-Did you even go to the link I suggested? Maybe you could have capied and pasted, but maybe that was too much work for a slacker. UN inspectors knew there was something going on, it was ever present in the way documents were passed and the confusion the Iraqi diplomats created. If the UN inspectors say something was up, they're telling the truth. Here, I'll even repost the link for you, your Highness. I did argue this point, then and now. Maybe you skipped it, you slacker.

http://www.2la.org...

4.You accuse me of speculation and little research but I noticed that you did not put any websites to support the claim that Iraq tried to use nuclear weapons. Even if any judge thinks they tried to use them, why have not they used them in the 16 year gap from 1991, when they allegedly tried to use them, and now? Because they are not/ were not going to use them.
-This would be a useful argument if I said the Iraqis HAD nuclear weapons. Of course, I didn't, but you wouldn't know that. Seems that you like to skip parts you don't like. The reason Saddam never used them is because we never let his program ssit long enough to get them. For the third time, the Israelis blew up his reactor in '83, and we did again in '91, and thwarted his plans again in '03. I hate repeating myself. I wouldn't have to if you'd read.

5.Once again, there is no proven threat.
-No proof that weapons of mass destruction are a threat. Sorry, but nukes scare me a little. Suffocating over poison gas scares me. Being cut down by anthrax or some other deadly disease scares me. Know why? Because it can KILL me. There's a threat, since he promised to use them against Israel if they caught his attention, but he knew that we would come to Israel's defense, so I believe he was smart enough to pick his opportunities. And didn't I just say the things about his reactors? That can supply nuclear weapons? Ring a bell? No? You must be 12, beacause only children make people repeat themselves for fun.

6.You have read the Koran? Really? Surprises the heck out of me! You'll read that, but you won't read your opponent's argument? I'm insulted. Did you think it was peaceful? I particularly like Sura 9, Verse 29. It's my absolute favorite. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Sounds like a marching order to me. Oh, and don't the terrorists use this as one? I'm not calling for killing off Muslims or anything. I simply want to show up Islam for the imperialist political ideology it thinks it is. Denial really is a river in Egypt.

7.There is no basis for that statement! The dollar weakened during Bush's term significantly.
-I said that. Why do you feel the need to echo me? What you forgot is that that is supposed to happen in the free market cycle. perhaps you'd know that if you knew anything about economics. Why do you think you won since I said the dollar is weakening? Who it happens under isn't necessarily the cause of it. Childish....

8.Clinton took steps to save the prices of gasoline and tapped into the emergency oil reserve. Bush did...NOTHING!!! And Americans are expected to be paying $2 more in gasoline in 2 years. Nice job, Bush.
-What does that have to do with Bush not setting price controls? And didn't I explain why price controls are bad? And why Bush didn't set them? And why it's not his fault? Remember, the Middle East supplies most of the world's oil, and OPEC runs most of these countries. They have a political and economic agenda of their own. They are at full liberty to tweak prices however they want. What, would you like Bush to do it just so he could say he did something? As if it would do anything but give a false sense of security.

9.If you are willing to sacrifice the ONLY thing that has kept America what it is today, the Constitution, then let Bush destroy the constitution. The document GETS RID OF TRIALS!!! You failed to answer that. They also dont need warrants anymore!!! These are the principals of America thrown away. Next, why don't we get a dictator to outlaw baseball and apple pie.
-Actually, I'm not into destroying the Constitution. I'm quite partial to the piece of parchment. Personally, I don't see what's so enlightened about giving terrorists a trial. If they're terrorists, obviously we'd know it. So let's make a mockery the rule of law and give the terrorists a free trial, since they gave it to no one else. Remember Moussaoui's case? They have him life imprisonment because he had been "abused as a child." But he was the 20th 9/11 hijacker! his words upon his sentance were, 'America, you lose." He wouldn't be far from right, according to you. And they do need warrants for people like you and me who aren't terrorists. They don't for suspected terrorists. Which I'm fine with, but you seem to have a problem. I suppose that's fine, too.

10.This is ineffiecient b/c there are white and black terrorists as well. Are you conceeding to allow all non-Arabic terrorists free of search?
-Well, like I said, the MAJORITY match this profile. The other's, well, have to be left up to chance. because a terrorist is hard to spot. But not who he looks like. Some chances can't be taken. Obviously, you'd like to. Nothing racist about it, only practicality. If it were white men, then, by God, profile who look like him. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

11.More racism!!! My oppoent is racist and his view is obviously skewed for that reason!!!
-Fine. I'm racist because I like the rule of law and oppose criminals coming to this country and stealing our money and destroying our culture. So, that means you're for it, hmmm, Mr.Bigotspotterdeluxe?

12.Anyway, I crush you on economy.
-Can't do that unless you know something about economics. Sorry, nice try, though. Here's the link AGAIN:
http://www.cato.org...
Maybe you just didn't look at the link? It worked for me. You wouldn't lie to me, would you?
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by majormerak 8 years ago
majormerak
I do not like Bush, but I read the debate as openly as possible. Some of mrpresident's arguments would've been better, but the obvious discrimination against Islam really threw me off. By the way, I am Christian, but who says we are correct. =/
In any case, policydebategod's evidence seemed more reliable, plus his conduct was better and never got aggressive...
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Though I agree that Bush is NOT a good president, I am voting for Pro.

I found the arguments to be evenly matched, but Pro was correct in saying that Con's arguments, at times, seemed emotionally charged and inappropriate.

By comparison, Pro's arguments were more detailed and professional.
Posted by cherrychocolate 9 years ago
cherrychocolate
oh I'm sure I can find plenty to debate you on...but Islam would be redundant
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Still, if you want to have a go, just let me know, cherrychocolate.
Posted by cherrychocolate 9 years ago
cherrychocolate
ahhh someone beat me to the punch...
just saw your other debate with raheelsoh
who argued beautifully and I suspect anything I could say would be superfluous
so nevermind :)
Posted by cherrychocolate 9 years ago
cherrychocolate
so mrpresident -
I was trying to finally create that debate you promised me but I seem to be too myopic on this issue to come up with a title and opening statement that wouldn't be automatically prejudiced.
So if you'd care to initiate, go right ahead.
Posted by AMBagoli 9 years ago
AMBagoli
mr president. how do we send comments to one another, i wanted to have a debate with you over religion. you seem rather interesting. send me a comment. i read your debate on islam, i dare to say i have a rebuttal from another angle.
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Is there blood coming out of my ears, yet? Because I really think my brain just exploded. NO, I'm not a Nazi. That quote just means something to me. Don't assume things. And don't be as thickheaded as the guy I debated over this. I didn't say he had nukes. I said he was T-R-Y-I-N-G to acquire them. Did you read the argument? Seems you might be the stupid one.
Posted by Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
why do you have a quote from Hitler on your profile... are you a nazi?

and by the way they didn't find nukes, stupid.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
All that proves is that the president and Congress are guilty of treason, and should be hung. Or is it hanged? The Constitution is very clear about the penalty for those who violate their Oaths to uphold and defend it.
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rasheed 5 years ago
Rasheed
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not speculate like pro did, and provided sources to support his arguments. Good debate between two good opponents.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: helll no
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 majormerak 8 years ago
majormerak
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
policydebategodmrpresidentTied
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