The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
yoyopizza
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

George W. Bush

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,191 times Debate No: 22299
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (9)

 

16kadams

Con

We are arguing his presidency. 1st round = acceptance.
yoyopizza

Pro

Sure, this is my first debate.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

I will be short, as its your first debate.

1) Deficits



"With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions. " [1]



http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) economy

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office." [2]

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office." [2]

3) Oil prices

"Gas price under bush went to $4.21 a gallon and was over $3.00 a gallon most of his last term in office." [3]
"under George W. Bush, the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent." [4]

Conclusion:

Bush failed us.



[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://blogs.wsj.com...
[3] http://www.sodahead.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
yoyopizza

Pro

You call that short? :) Ok:
1) Bush aided Africa greatly by increasing the pledge Bill Clinton had.
2) Bush's presidency is probably looked down upon for the most part because of 9/11. Yet he responded quickly with the Patriot Act and saved 3,000 lives. There was never an attack on US soil since 9/11.
Thats all for now
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

extend arguments.

1) Africa

My opponents premise here is he helped Africa, well may I point out this may not have happened without Clinton. This premise is basically defending foreign policy. Lets look into two things I support, but will devils advocate on:

---> Iraq war

Iraqi troop deaths:
Total dead: 28,736-37,120[1]

Coalition forces troop deaths:
Total dead: 24,219
Total wounded: 117,961 [1]

Plus cost:

1 trillion US dollars. [2]

Deaths to civilians

Over 100,000. [3]

---> Afghanistan war

Afghans killed:

Killed: 36,806-40,982+ [4]

US/allies troops killed:

Total Killed 14,007+ [4]

Civilians killed:

civilians killed on accident 9000 [5]
7000-8000 killed on purpose [5]
14-17 thousand killed total [5]

Yeah he killed a lot of people from this.

2) Patriot act

No one blames him for 9/11, sorry. But the patriot act (something I am for) I will devils advocate on to refute:

"roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups." [6]

Why is this a problem? Right to privacy.

"The right not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. " [7]

"Privacy uses the theory of natural rights, and generally responds to new information and communication technologies. In North America, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone" [7]

Conclusion:

extend arguments. The things my opponent stated are either bad or outweighted in other areas, so I urge a con vote.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
yoyopizza

Pro

By attacking Iraq we got rid of Saddam. Also if liberals had not made such a big deal about the oil we could have harvested it and brought the economy up instead of down but the liberals had to convince everyone taking oil from their was a evil right wing attack to conquer the world so really its the liberals fault that the economy is down.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

---> Extend all arguments except Iraq

Refutations:

---> Saddam

--We entered Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Husein [1]

Weapons of mass destruction:

The CIA's final report was NO WMD'S FOUND. [2] Everyone will scream bias at the source I used, so lets use a less biased one to prove no WMD's where found. The weapons program was already halted with UN sanctions, and when we invaded no WMD's where found. [3]

Saddam:

The rational behind Saddam was he was a mass murderer etc. But one must ask was this a legitament cause to invade his country? No.

Areas where people are being killed and no US invasion:

1. Somalian civil war. [4]
2. War in Dar Fur (US not there) [5]
3. Pol Pot [6]
4. Chairman Mao [7]


The point is killing Saddam because he was killing people is not a reason as all of these other conflicts/mass murderers never got invaded by the US for this reason, and weren't invaded by us at all.

My opponents last statement on oil is not relevant as it never happened (no oil was taken).

Conclusion:

He dropped most of my arguments and has not justified the Iraq war or showed my arguments false/not enough to weigh down his good side. Bush FAILED US.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[3] http://www.economist.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
yoyopizza

Pro

George Bush signed a radical Medicare bill into law in 2003 that attempted to ease the financial burden of buying prescription drugs for the elderly. Sometimes criticised for being too costly, the reform signalled Mr Bush's awareness of skyrocketing health costs for the nation's senior citizens.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
A basic failure by con to provide a resolution and make a case relative to the resolution. con does not make a prima facie case, so Pro does not need to argue anything. The "debate" is no more than a poll of emotions.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by mee2kool4u369 4 years ago
mee2kool4u369
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry yoyopizza but you have to face the facts that this was clearly 16adams debate. I do not agree that he went so hard on you so I gave you most reliable sources. (16adams would have truly gotten that one)
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proposed the debate and has the burden to provide a clear resolution. So what was the resolution? Con seems to be arguing that Bush did not live up Con's idea of a utopian ideal, so that all bad things confirm Con's case. There was no excuse for posing as Con and no excuse for failing to provide a resolution. Con might have proposed "The World" and then listed the ills of existence. Not a debate.
Vote Placed by blackblaze241 4 years ago
blackblaze241
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: 16k had longer arguments and because of that i could understand his arguments better, and he used sources. so i voted for con. :)
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments never were refuted and he refuted each of pro's arguments. Pro only brought up new points each round, never stopping to defend a point he brought up. Easy win for con.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: read the debate and you shall see.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: any argument (like the Pro's) that I could fit onto the back of a postage stamp is most likely a really, really sh*tty argument....
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's arguments were not comprehensive in detail, while CON's were, and were also simple and to the point, the good of both points allowing him to get the win.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsyoyopizzaTied
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: No reasons needed.