The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 65231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Pro will argue Obama will have a greater legacy than Bush. Con will argue Bush will have the greater legacy over Obama. The greater legacy belongs to he who will have done the most to improve the lives of people in this country for the future.

Categories of Policy Include:
Foreign Affairs, Domestic Policy, Civil Rights, Environment, Immigration, Health Care & Energy

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Arguments
Third Round: Rebuttal

The debater that shows the President to whom has greatest overall legacy using the categories listed above shall be deemed to be the winner.


I am not familiar with this format but assume this stage is acceptance alone so I here accept the challenge and I assert the opposite is true that the challenge propose, that is fact history in the future will be kinder to George Bush than Barack Obama.

I do not argue to popular opinion such as found in polls, newspapers and blogs but rather from a cold scholarly consideration from an objective perspective. There is little doubt there will be those historians that will agree with the doctrine of one or the other of these two and those I dismiss as not scholarly or historical.

What I refer to as "popular" as an example is what can easily be found about the Civil war which involves a vast array of complex human perspectives or milieu if you will that can only be understood with a solid foundation of Philosophy and Anthropology yet is reduced to popular acerbic political jargon such as "racists" and "hatred." To me this is not history and I assert if any of our arguments here are made along such lines as popular opinion then the other in the debate may and should declare this not valid as any observers. The cheer of the crowd should not be mistaken for the cold objective view of the historian.
Debate Round No. 1


We must remember the condition of the country as the President took office as part of his record, in that a person inherits a certain situation and must do the best they can to operate from that position. When Obama took office the economy was failing, we were faced with a corrupt government in bed with big business, two irretractable wars, a crumbling infrastructure, and a cynical public. To start with the economy: the auto industry was failing, Leeman Brothers needed to be bailed out, and the banking system was collapsing. So he initiated the TARP system and "stress tests" designed by a crack economic team. GDP Growth increased under his watch from -5.4% when he took office to 3.5% today. His housing market efforts were not initially successful, but the stimulus package created or saved more than 3.4 million jobs. As concerns renewable resources, he spearheaded a campaign to provide the American public with renewable resources, but economic interested counteracted his efforts. For instance, in a program designed to fund such energy sources, 2% waste was officially reported. However, for months in the news was talk about a company called Solyndra that may have been a bad investment. Another of his efforts met with counterforces as well, this one was The Affordable Care Act, which was given the unfortunate moniker "Obamacare." This single piece of legislation, designed to help shore up the health care system, came up for appeal over 50 times. It has given millions of Americans affordable health care and works to implement better procedures for doctors and physicians to treat their patients. He has oversaw the development of the controversial Core Learning education system that encourages outside of the box thinking to young children and cross education allowing for teachers to have the opportunity to teach breadth and flexibility to young minds. He disengaged the Middle East with a plan ending the wars there and began peace talks, currently working on nuclear disarmament with Iran. Blowback has occurred, it is unfortunate but must be expected with a war of this nature. He has done this with several obstacles in the works against him. The biggest obstacle of course has been a Congress that was the lowest rated in roughly 40 years of Gallup poll history during the 7-10 of November, 2013 at 9%. He also had to deal with hostile local and state governments that curtailed over 600,000 jobs in his first term as president. Obama promised Hope and Change when he ran for office in 2008. After a short time on the job Sara Palin mocked him by saying, "How's that hopey, changey thingy going now." As cynical as the public has been for as long as it has been Obama has delivered on that message of hope and change. So, I think with both his attitude and work ethic, Obama will have a good legacy and one that reflects more favorably on him than history will reflect on Bush. I would also like to add there are tough problems he has still to face, that we as a nation have to face hopefully we can push through these times with that same attitude of hope and change.


Thank you for your response.

You seem to list a series of anecdotal instances on the one hand laying at Obama's feet great difficulty then on the other tremendous forces against him preventing him from doing more. In your challenge question you refer to legacy and yet you respond in your argument to particulars, this is very confusing to me.

Allow me to explain. When we think of George Washington do you recall the conditions he inherited that prevented his ability to do more or for that matter Abraham Lincoln? Do you read in the text books that only if these men had no detractors he would have been a better president? No we do not because these issues as you have laid out do not appear to be in the mind of historians as they evaluate legacy. So how is it they evaluate these two and others we would claim have the distinction as great president's and certainly over the achievement of both Bush and Obama but what are the differences?

I submit an evaluation of legacy is not issues such as you lay out, most of which I believe are questionable in interpretation but refuting each one by one then assembling all the individual circumstances of things done, coming up with a scoring system of contraceptives versus the Patriot Act etc is untenable and would get us nowhere.

Instead I suggest we look at the character of these two men and not what is popularized on one side of the divide or the other. In this let us start at the top and that is how one president treats the other?

Obama clearly blamed George Bush for everything that befell him for at least the first four years and here you are offering excuses for Obama some 6 years into a two term presidency. Now let us consider that act of blaming someone else for the problems a person has? Is this what you do when you get a ticket for speeding, you accuse the officer of being unfair, or you blame the car company for not making a visible enough speed indicator or you might even blame the kids or wife for delaying you this morning causing you to rush to work and thereby get the ticket.

By the evidence of your own words of excusing the flaws of Obama without admitting them in your laundry list you do provide evidence that indeed Obama participated in this blame game never turning his attention to himself and there you are polemically supporting all he says suggesting you are in not position to evaluate the claim you make regarding legacy. This is akin to you and I arguing about the legacy of your father or mother. You have such a deep personal connection to your parents and would find all manner of nuance to support the aspirational way you view them much the same as you do with Obama.

I am a Conservative and I personally do not care for Bush but I believe his legacy if based on character which the historians appear to favor in terms of legacy and here we have Obama blaming George Bush (John Kerry even blamed him for not having enough flu shots ready in one year) as opposed to George Bush that you will not find has ever uttered a negative, derogatory word criticizing Obama.

So in your own life would you hold the character and thereby the legacy of a person who blames everyone else over the character of those that accept responsibility over excuse?
Debate Round No. 2


In the vision for this debate I imagined I would do Pro Obama/Con Bush and you would do Pro Bush/Con Obama. However it was not realized by some lack of communication. You also did not look at the cold facts of the case, but simply stated your opinion. In fact what I wanted you to do was indeed something like you layout in paragraph 3 of your argument. As I listed the Pro Obama, I will now list the Con Bush and I hope you will follow suit. To start out with, Bush inherited the nation at peace with a budget surplus. Some of the first things he did were rollback economic programs initiated under Clinton that led to that surplus and end our participation of the Kyoto Protocal. The first reversed the surplus into a deficit, negatively impacting our economy, and the second created political tension around the world. He then curtailed efforts at nuclear disarmament that were initiated by Ronald Reagan. In what I would call his best achievement, he initiated the failed No Child Left Behind, which standardized testing at the cost of allowing teachers the freedom to teach in the manner they so wished. After 9/11 occurred, he took the fight to Afghanistan, where he saw some success. However, he proceeded to seize this opportunity to invade Iraq at the slightest provocation with minimal international support. This effort labeled "The global war on terror," became the shadow lingering over his presidency that he could not escape. He met with world leaders, such as Putin, looking into their souls. He authorized detainment in Guantanamo Bay, a problem that still festers in this world. Yet, I cannot but agree with you on one thing"it all comes down to character; and I think we will remember Obama for his integrity, honesty, and hard work and we will remember Bush for his practice of intimidation and his negligence.


I disagree with your contention that this comes down to a question of the particular issues and I made my case for that above and refer you to it.

What is the basis of the honesty and integrity exhibited by Obama?

For instance would you hold a person as honest and of high integrity who so much blames their opposition? Is this a characteristic of a Leader in the long arc of history?

If so please refer to the philosophy that holds up as virtuous those that hurt their enemies and reward their friends and that those enemies can be citizens of a person's own country and particularly as the leader of that country?

To me history will be kind on those that bring people together not drive them apart as Obama has done.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 1 year ago
I see you have read your Republic, Thrasymachus.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 1 year ago
So you found out a few things about me and can hurl an insult. You challenge me, I challenge you--make Bush the better President and do so with the Republic, hope you read it.
Posted by easleycpa 1 year ago
Come on Metta push yourself away from Lord of the Rings and defend your assertions. You think degrees prove you a philosopher then obviously you are unfamiliar with the Republic or at least its true meanings. I am calling you out, I say you are not a philosopher and further declare you delusional if you believe in your opening assertion.

Come on you are hereby served although I can tell by your profile and your assertion here that you are perhaps still a child if not in body in mind alone and hardly worth the minor effort it will take to lay waste to the unsound principles you rely on and the weakness of your inferences.

I hereby claim victory before the posted period end because you are not what you say but rather are an imagination of what you hope to be, that is you hope for change in yourself yet you do nothing to effect that change beyond useless assertions unsupported by reason while you fancy yourself a philosopher which you are not.
Posted by easleycpa 1 year ago
I accept this debate and await your opening argument.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
It already is. Under Bush the debt rose by $4.500,000,000,000.00. Obama has already increased it by $9,000,000,000,000.00. He really is on a roll.

Would not listen to his generals and pulled out of Iraq too soon. Now has to go back in and clean up the mess he made.
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
What are legacies all about? Let's do the Obama-gate count: ISIS-gate, Ebola-In-US-gate, Open-Boarder-gate, Benghazi-gate, IRS-gate, Press-gate, Fast-and-Furious-gate, NSA-gate, Vet-gate, Bowe-gate, and the end is not near.

As for ObamaCare, the truth has it as GruberCare.
Posted by 1Credo 1 year ago
Oh how low the standards have become.
No votes have been placed for this debate.