The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

James buchanan was the worst president ever!

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,780 times Debate No: 19224
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

16kadams

Pro

1st round acceptance only, you argue he is not he worst, and show me an alternative and prove him worse. The BOP is on me to prove he is worst, and you to prove yours is worst.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that Harding was the worst president, and will provide evidence to show Buchanan was not.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

O.K. I wish you good luck and have fun!

1. He is the worst president ever according to scholars and did nothing to stop the civil war:
According to a group of presidential historians, it should be 15th President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania native, for failing to avert the bloodiest war in U.S. history. [1]Scholars who participated weren't surprised to see that Buchanan — who was born near Mercersburg, Pa., in 1791 and died in Lancaster in 1868 — topped the list. They say he didn't do enough to oppose efforts by southern states to secede from the Union, which led to the Civil War.

"The Constitution gives him executive power. It's the power to get things done, not to sit there," said Richard Pious, a political science professor at Barnard College, a women's college affiliated with Columbia University. [1]
2.
refusal to take action when action needed to be taken. He didn't dare challenge the slavery issue, or try to get a united front on the issue. [2]Bleeding Kansas: Buchanan fully endorsed the entry of Kansas as a slave state by backing the LeCompton Constitution [2] So he helped create the mini civil war in kansas because he endorsed it.

3. Financial Panic: Buchanan had his own economic troubles. The government faced a significant shortfall of revenue due to the Democrats' push to lower the tariff. Buchanan's Treasury Secretary ordered the issuance of deficit financing for the government -- causing a financial panic and claims of the Buchanan administration's financial irresponsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
4. he denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want it. He then watched silently as South Carolina seceded on December 20, followed by six cotton states. Before Buchanan left office on March 4, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter) [2]

Buchanan's failure to deal with the secession issue is the reason that most historians rate his performance so poorly....this failure led directly to the Civil War [2]

So his inability to act to prevent the crises he faced make him the worst president ever.

http://www.poconorecord.com... [1]
http://askville.amazon.com...? [2]
http://www.monacorarecoins.com...
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

extend all arguments.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I apologize for my late response, I have been busy.

Rebuttal to 1 and 4
Buchanan did not "do nothing" to avoid the Civil War. Im fact, he not only politically rejected the Southerners when he "publicly rejected both the right and the wisdom of secession," but he also militarily rejected them, as he "declined to reinforce the federal forts in the Deep South, fearing that doing so would ignite hostilities."[1] Sure, Buchanan could have done more, and sure, there were plenty of better politicians who would have taken more action. But this is no reason to characterize the man as some fool who did nothing.

Rebuttal to 2
Because he endorsed Bleeding Kansas, he is qualified as the worst President of all time? No.

Rebuttal to 3
First, I would like to draw a line between Buchanan and his administration. Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority.



Sources
1. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point. Yes he did publically reject the southerners, but he did not do anything more for that effort, even you say he could have done more. Just tell me one thing, why didnt he reinforce the forts in the south? That would have stopped or even delayed the war, but he didnt. Action is acction, insuffiecient action is as good as none at all.

No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason. Does tripling the debt make obama the worst president ever? No it is just a reason to rank him lower then Lincolon.
"Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority."

This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all of his fails. I think that his incompetence is what got in his way. And I forgot to tell you, there is a rumor I am related to him through marriage, so it is like a family member and I hate him. So that should say somehting.
Also you have failed to recognise my point that political scholars have ranked him at the bottom, so that is my main case other then 1, and the others are just extra proof.

http://www.usnews.com...

My computer is fritzing, so go to this article for more info, I will posts its info next round when it will open, I read it once before though. So read it or wait.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply.

A quick response
My opponent says, 'All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point.' I'm not sure how to take this. My opponent says they are worthless but then goes on to concede and say they prove my point.

Rebuttal 1
There have been many Presidents in the past who have done nothing but endorse a side rather than take action, but this does not mean they should have or shouldn't have. He grew up with Southern sympathies, it says a lot more for this man to reject the Southerners than for someone such as Lincoln. You say, "he should have done more," but even if he had done more, but still failed, he would still be compared to his successor, Lincoln, who was obviously a better President. Perhaps this sudden contrast of great leadership and bad leadership leads people to ignore his accomplishments and focus on his shortcomings.

Rebuttal 2
"No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason." If it does not make him the worst, then why would you use this as a point? We are arguing, as the title boldly proclaims, over whether "James buchanan was the worst president ever!" A point that does not support your claim -- "bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst," in your own words -- is an irrelevant point.

Rebuttal 3
"This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all his fails." I never said ONE scandal was reponsible for "all of his fails" -- I gave evidence that this particular failure was the responsibility of a scandal, which is why I put that evidence under the header "Rebuttal to 3." I never said one scandal caused all of his failures. Although I don't like accusing my opponent of fallacies, this is basically the definition of the straw man.

Rebuttal to the "scholars" point
I am not debating Mr. Jay Tolson of US News. I had a similar debate like this where my opponent told me to read an article about a thousand times. You must understand, I cannot debate an article. Please write your argument in the space provided (quoting the article would be nice and even recommended), but telling me to read an article is very vague. Voters may take this as bad conduct, but I'm trying my best not to sound condescending. This goes for the scholars point, too.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
But hey, you're winning. Good job.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ok
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I didn't have the time. I have been busy lately.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you never proved harding was the worst
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
its fine
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I apologize for forfeiting. I have been extremely busy. I will make an argument next round.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Alright. It does that to me, too.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
odd, Ill add that in later
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Can you clear up your links a little? At least [2] is dead.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsNur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: no one was very convincing but con did forfeit a round and pro did use better sources