The Instigator
nerdyandnotsoproud
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
BravesFan33
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

George W. Bush is a good president.

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: 12/6/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,223 times Debate No: 151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (25)

 

nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

Hi, I think George W. Bush (our current president as of Dec. 6, 2007) is a good president. He may not have been the most articulate or intellectual individual elected as president, but nonetheless he has made a genuine effort to better the world we live in. Today, so many Americans blindly oppose Bush without ever paying the slightest attention to the matter on hand. They don't really understand the concepts, yet they argue against him since so many others are. I think it's safe to say that a majority of the anti-Bush advocates are ignorant people who can't form their own legitimate arguments and thus ride with the bandwagon. Often times his good deeds are easily condoned, whereas his mistakes are over-scrutinized and deprecated to the point where it becomes a form of propoganda.
BravesFan33

Con

Wow.

Your argument, at first...made me a bit mad. But then I remembered, "Oh yeah, he's a Republican"...which can scientifically be associated with ignorance and/or stupidity...so I just laughed.

First of all, I'd like to quote you: "He's made a genuine effort to better the world we live in."

I learned this really cool thing in my earlier childhood years...it's called like..."common sense" or "logic" or something like that. But anyways, it seems to me that dropping bombs on innocent lives, many many many of whom are women and children...doesn't exactly fall under the "logic" category of the "making the world a better place" section. Studies show that the very minimum of civilian deaths because of the Iraq War is 77,945. The very minimum of American soldiers wounded and/or killed is 25,862. In case you didn't know, once a person is killed, he can't come back to life. Once a mother's child's head is blown off right in front of her, once a child's father is incinerated by a bomb right in front of him, once a sister or brother is reported dead...it's over. There aren't exactly any redos. Combatting violence with violence heals no wounds, only creates more. Try suddenly losing a mother/father/brother/sister...your life will go straight to the $hitter. You'll find no consolation.

Try fighting in a war. The overwhelming majority of soldiers who see battle come home (if they come home) alcoholics. Why? Because war is nothing more than a perpetual cycle of killing, murder, and despair. Until you fight in a war, don't sit at your computer mashing little buttons about how necessary it is to the world. Walk the walk before talking the talk.

War yields no winners...everyone loses, because every life directly involved in a war will only be affected negatively. It isn't a win for a widow or childless mother. Oh and don't try bringing up Hitler and WWII. The United States didn't even enter the war or try to combat the nazis until after Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, Bush's War is about Oil. Go to this website...
http://www.thedebate.org...

Thirdly, here are some Dubya facts for you...

-He spent the surplus and bankrupted the Treasury
-SHATTERED record for biggest annual deficit in history
-Set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in a 12-month period
-The first president in history to enter office with a criminal record
-First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
-Over 2 million Americans lost their jobs in his first year in office
-Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans
-Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest (15 million people)
-First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
-Has spent over $90,000,000,000 on this "War in Iraq"
-Has trouble communicating sentences most people learn in Preschool

...and there's plenty plenty more where that came from.
Oh and have you noticed the gas prices in recent years? The leading cause: War in Iraq.

Do you seriously think this war is somehow making the world a better place? Do you have any clue how naive and unrealistic that is? Iraq is now the training ground for the largest amount of terrorists ever. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Gas prices have skyrocketed. America has a 50% divorce rate. 4,000 hungry children still leave us per hour. The U.S. is still, BY FAR...the world leader in annual murders, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Look, the world's just too big for one man to make it a better place. With each eliminated problem rises a new one. Figures like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Alber Einstein...they were at least mentally and emotionally powerful enough to make a huge, positive difference. But George W. Bush is nowhere close to the level these people were on. He's a fake, naive, ignorant, monkey-lookin',murderer. End of story.
Debate Round No. 1
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

I'm actually neither a Republican nor Democrat; I'm just an outsider giving some incite as to how I feel about the subject. Before you ramble on about how "ignorant" and "stupid" I am, ask yourself this: Was this war avoidable or was an inevitability we would have had to face sooner or later? The war was a genuine effort to take out a potentially dangerous dictator, not because of oil as so many gullible people think. While it's true that oil was a factor in the instigation of the war, its relevance was minutely small. The "oil" claim is merely a bandwagon argument, which unfortunately, many have been caught in.

America went into war to bring relief and aid to those suffering under Saddam's regime. He was a murderous dictator who did in fact use torture as a method of authority. Hussein was incontrovertibly a cruel human who inflicted suffering upon millions of Iraqi civilians. Most would agree that taking Hussein out of dictatorship was a humanitarian effort, unless of course you were part of Saddam's regime. Had you been one of those oppressed by Saddam's government, you would have a completely different view of Bush.

The US entered the war with a legitimate reason, but the execution of its strategies was poor to say the least. I agree that the cost of civilian lives was inexcusable and utterly unjustifiable. The US has never had a major attack on its soil (until 911), so the nation does not have a true grasp as to the meaning of civilian casualties. I cannot imagine the pain of those who lost their loved ones in the bombings. But then again, I also could not imagine the pain of those under Hussein's vindictive tyranny. America's fault is not because they chose to enter the war, but because they entered the war with such haste, and without a clearly defined goal after the expulsion of Saddam. But this mistake does solely rest on the president's irresponsibility; the entire government is responsible for the failures. Congress initially voted to enter the war, but when the situation became increasingly difficult, the recalcitrant House Reps and Senators decided to back out and instead, oppose the war in its entirety. Bush made a terrible mistake, but he was decent enough to make an attempt to fix it, not run away from it like most of Congress.

Secondly, everyone agrees with your assertion that war brings devastation to the people. In an ideal world, war would be a non-existent term, and every conflict would be resolved with peace. But our reality lies far away from this Utopia where the leaders seek personal gain regardless of morality. Peaceful consultation is a rarity; without the use of force, every society on the face of the globe would be a corrupt, living hell.

America is probably the only country in the world that cares so much for the well-fare of other humans, so much so as to sacrifice the lives of its very own people. This war which you clearly deplore, would have been executed by any president. How can you neglect your fellow humans knowing that they are being oppressed by a despotic and hateful ruler? The war in Iraq was full of mistakes, many of which could have been evaded. But the underlining effort to bring freedom and an end to the criminal acts of totalitarian dictator.

* Ease up on your emotions! Why don't you write an argument without the presence of insults! Insults and crude comments only make your argument seem weaker. If you're confident in your argument, you wouldn't need to use the insults. And by the way, I checked out the link you provided; it is clearly on one extreme side of the spectrum. Rule of thumb: don't take the extremes of both sides seriously; they are almost always unreliable. Wow, I'm not American and it seems like I have more patriotism for this country than you!
BravesFan33

Con

So according to all of you...insults yield no relevance. But what if they're true? What if it's true that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are ignorant/stupid? What if it's true that you're all sitting at your computer typing nerdy sentences about Superman George W. Bush and how great war is, when you've never experienced a war whatsoever? Doesn't that make it relevant?

Nerdy, your initial argument included the following line: "Anti-Bush advocates are ignorant people who can't form legitimate arguments and thus ride the bandwagon." Sort of sounds like an INSULT to me. Run your ethics radar through your own BS before running it through mine.

"The oil claim is a bandwagon argument." You wanna talk about bandwagon? Did you know that at one point after 9/11...the majority of Americans still thought Iraq had something to do with the terrorist attacks? That's odd. Bandwagon, perhaps? Wanna talk about bandwagon? How does a man who has the IQ of a piece of notebook paper get elected? Bandwagon, perhaps? Oh and you can't argue against facts. If you read the link, it clearly states that we were very interested in Iraqi oil BEFORE 9/11 even happened. It's not an extremist opinion. It's a qualified fact.

I also find it humorous that you find this war inevitable. It wasn't. Terrorists attacked U.S. buildings...and about 3 weeks later we were dropping bombs on Iraq, who had nothing to do with it. And actually, Bush's #1 justification for entering the war was "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So...where are they now?

We entered Agfhanistan, we entered Iraq, killed 80,000+ innocent people, and caused the world to hate us even more...yet somehow this war was "inevitable." Wow.

Oh and many people thought the same thing about Vietnam. Let's fly to the rescue and kill these evil communists! And yet...what did Vietnam accomplish? Well...hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers were killed. Thousands of Vietnamese civilians were physically tortured by U.S. soldiers. That's about it. So what's your justification for Vietnam? That it was "inevitable"? Hmmm....

Oh and believe me...I know a Utopian world will never happen. That's not what I'm saying. But to argue against wars that have accomplished basically nothing but death...is that naive?

And like I said...you can't combat violence with violence. Yes, Hussein was an evil tyrant...but 100,000 innocent lives were taken before getting to him. Suffering only increases with more violence.

"America is probably the only country in the world who cares about the wellfare of humans." Is that why we lead the world in murder, divorce, and teen pregnancy? Is that why we have a health care system that basically only helps people with lots of money? Is that why we drop bombs all over the globe? Is that why everyone hates us?

Yeah, America is a land of Christ.

Oh...and your topic of debate is that "George W. Bush is a good president." Ha...you've really done a great job at proving that.
Debate Round No. 2
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

nerdyandnotsoproud forfeited this round.
BravesFan33

Con

BravesFan33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
Notice how the Democratic liberals are able to actually look at the merit of the debate, while the Republican liberals I've encountered on this site always just vote for the argument they agree with. Interesting.

We need more libertarians at this site! Or failing that, some Old Right Conservatives.
Posted by paul_tigger 6 years ago
paul_tigger
To Bravesfan33:

Your lack of "emotional" control lead to your demise in this debate. Your unwillingness to look at other people's viewpoints and consider them objectively was a bit much. Your sarcasm and your lack of respect for the other debater demonstrates to other that you lack sound reasoning ability. I hope to see you in other debates because I do believe you have potential but you need to reign in your emotions.

Best regards
Posted by smilingsoprano 6 years ago
smilingsoprano
I agree with earlier comments. Con, your arguments had some merit, but they were presented in a way that was rude. This not only obscures your points and prejudices the reader against you, it makes your arguments seem weaker. You look defensive and unprofessional.
Pro, you did a wonderful job of pointing out Con's insults and not replying in kind. It made Con look like an idiot (whether or not he is).
Although I believe that Bush has been a DISASTER as President, I have to say that Pro's arguments were more logical, he followed them through, and handily won the round.
I would like to see him debate a more competent opponent on the same topic.
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
looks like Mr Braves fan has been closed down , due to his Bush Derangement Syndome, and irrational hatred for republicans and his inability to control himself

Judging by Lindsay's comments

BravesFan, rock on. You put into words an argument better than so many other people could have, and you presented the truth.

she suffers from BDS too

Again, all you Bush haters, please visit my current debate "Is Bush Derangement Syndrome a Real Mental Disorder that could be classified in the DSM?"

please flame away, and I will methodically make you look like the innane robots that you are for all to see.

I love eating liberals for lunch!
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
read the debate about Bush Derangement Syndrome

cheers
Posted by nrw 6 years ago
nrw
Wow. I cannot stand Bush yet I have to vote for the Pro on this one.

My reasons for this decision are similar to clsmooth's.

Off the record from the debate, (it didn't affect MY decision), but Bravesfan, the mockery and insults were too much. To alot of people, both invloved in debate, but especially those not involved in debate, things like this is very damning to your image - and you might lose votes because of it.
Posted by clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
ROUND 1

Wow. Surprisingly strong arguments from nerdlyandnotsoproud in Round 1. Everything flowed logically. I can agree with the LOGIC of most of the arguments.

By contrast, BravesFan33 does the exact kind of low-brow bashing to begin his argument. Amazing! He's doing exactly what nerdlyandnotsoproud said anti-Bush people do! Falling right into the trap!

The "overwhelming majority" of soldiers who come home are alcoholics? Hahaha. That is not true at all. How absurd.

Finally, you provide some legitimate reasons why Bush is a horrible president at the end of your round. But the opening salvos in this debate were HORRIBLE for you. I have to give Round 1 to nerdlyandnotsoproud.

ROUND 2

Okay, I'm calling it. BravesFan33 can't play fair. He takes a quote from nerdlyandnotsoproud out of context in Round 2 to deliberately make it look like he said something he didn't. He said "a MAJORITY of anti-Bush people are idiots" or whatever, NOT "ALL of them." You are using the tactics that he's describing. Lies, half-truths, and insults.

I could give you a million reasons that Bush has been a disaster as president. And I could do it without lame insults.
Posted by KevinL75 6 years ago
KevinL75
Con was entirely too flippant - lay off the ad hominem attacks, even if you think they're relevant. Just because you think someone (or some group) is stupid doesn't mean it'll be good to use in a debate. You'll just get reactions like the ones you've been getting.
Posted by albachteng 6 years ago
albachteng
i voted for the affirmative, even though I think bush is a bad president. the con was insulting, rude, and offensive. he appealed to his audience/opponent with angry rhetoric and emotionally loaded responses. also, con never responded to pro's argument that congress was the initiator of the war.

the snide and smart-alecky tone present in your writing is inexcusable, con. if i were you, i would be pretty embarrassed right now. good job pro, you stuck to your guns, and even though i strongly disagree, you have my respect.
Posted by SolaGratia 6 years ago
SolaGratia
In my opinion, both of the debaters were incompetent, and the question remains unsolved. Perhaps someone more articulate would care to start another debate with the same topic.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by ChevySdyme99 6 years ago
ChevySdyme99
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 mrmatt505 6 years ago
mrmatt505
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 paul_tigger 6 years ago
paul_tigger
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 Ozymandias 6 years ago
Ozymandias
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 JoeDSileo 6 years ago
JoeDSileo
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 wheelhouse3 6 years ago
wheelhouse3
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 smilingsoprano 6 years ago
smilingsoprano
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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 JohnWells 6 years ago
JohnWells
nerdyandnotsoproudBravesFan33Tied
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