The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

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
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: 1/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,472 times Debate No: 1332
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

Farooq

Pro

I utterly despise Pierre Elliot Trudeau for a variety of leaders. I love my country, though when it elected him I have doubts regarding voters' judgement. In and out of office this Liberal leader would slowly destroy our country fiscally, socially, and diplomatically. Yet for some reason people adored him in his time and even now.

First and foremost Trudeau's Liberals ruined our economy. He was a rich playboy, and had no fiscal restraint whatsoever. With a varierty of programs and utter disregard for frugality he started a snowball that would soon lead to Canada's half-trillion dollar deficit. Although much of this finacial distress was caused by other regimes (most prominently Mulroney's) he was the instigator and caused one of Canada's worst deficits of all time, and we wern't even at war or in a depression.

He also complety disregarded traditonal social ways and would be on the forefront of defense of injust judicial descions like R. vrs Sullivan. He also encoruaged the use of taxpayer's dollars to interven in arts and culture, which was quite a waste and thankfully the Tories would later cut this :)

Lastly he was a Communist syphatizer. He literally was card-carrying member for while in youth (in which he spent cowardly avoiding involvment in the crusade against Hitler) and when in power he was good friends with Castro. Worst of all he went the PRC and helped them kick Taiwan out of the UN and resumed relations with the second-worst mass murderer in history (and pedophile, but that's not really relavent), Mao Tse-Tung forgetting the atrocites conducted during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

Yet he acheived rulership over my country on several occasions, voters completly ignoring the ruin brought forth. Overall I am not particually fond of Pierre Idiot Trudeau.
solo

Con

("Good" is subjective, so I'm taking on this debate from a 'good vs. evil' point of view.)

Pierre Trudeau was NOT an evil Prime Minister. Your attempts to vilify such a good man will fail. He was a good Prime Minister that brought about positive change for his beloved Canada.

The 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution, including a domestic amending formula and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is seen as advancing civil rights and liberties and, notwithstanding clause aside, has become a cornerstone of Canadian values for most Canadians. It also represented the final step in Trudeau's liberal vision of a fully independent and nationalist Canada based on fundamental human rights and the protection of individual freedoms as well as those of linguistic and cultural minorities. Court challenges based on the Charter of Rights have been used to advance the cause of women's equality, establish French school boards in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to mandate the adoption of gay marriage all across Canada. Section 15, dealing with Equality Rights, has been used to remedy societal discrimination against minority groups. Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 has clarified issues of aboriginal and equality rights, including establishing the previously denied aboriginal rights of M�tis.

I personally loved him for the passage of his implementation of official bilingualism. Bilingualism is one of Trudeau's most lasting accomplishments, having been fully integrated into the Federal government's services, documents, and broadcasting. While official bilingualism has settled some of the grievances Francophones had towards the federal government, many Francophones had hoped that Canadians would be able to function in the official language of their choice no matter where in the country they were. A man that can implement such an invaluable gift can be nothing other than good.

<>

I think your personal feelings are clouding your judgment on a good Prime Minister. He was not evil, as you suggested.

<>

He wasn't to blame and you even admit that he wasn't the cause. You're just angry and you want someone to blame.

<>

None of this makes him an evil Prime Minister, as you've suggested. It just means that he had an appreciation for something that you did not.

<>

So what? So what if he was a Communist sympathizer? I am a Communist sympathizer. That does not make me a bad person; nor did that make him a bad Prime Minister. You are not only judgmental, but mistaken.

<>

The masses used good judgment and elected a good Prime Minister. As Trudeau had the support of the people, I'm inclined to believe they were right, thus making you wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

First of the topic of this debate was not whter or not Trudeau was a good person, but whether he was a "good" prime minister, that is whether or not his service in office was benefitial to the country.

Of his achievements that you have commented on you (and many others) name the patriation of the consitution as one of them. Why? All he did was put his signature on a piece of paper fixing a minor red-tape thing so that stuff wouldn't have to pass past London's gaze. Evne though they had never shown the slightest inclination to control us by any form of the imagiantion. Also by opening this can of worms like the ammmending formula, he helped divide the country over a useless piece of red-tape that could have just as easily been left alone.

As for the notion that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an asset, you must relaize that Canada supported basic rights and freedoms before and never has notioned to abridge them. Along with Difenbaker's Bill of Rights these documents were all show and actually do nothing protect rights and freedoms, they are mere words with no push (as we can see with Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause over Bill 101).

As for your assertion that I am merely venting steam and my hatred for Trudeau is casuing me to critizize his leadership abilities, you are sorely mistaken. Trudeau came long before my time, and looking back it is acutally the other way around: I detest him becuase of the directions he took my country.

Lastly we must remember that the chief priotirty of any elected official is bring greatness to her (or his) country. For all practicality declarations of "freedom and rights" (odd seeing as he seemly perfectly willing to ignore the mass killings instigated by his Hitleresque buddy Mao, yet got all fired up about the assults on human rights when some provinces grumbled against his martial defintion) but better correlates with what sort of economic situation his country is in because of him, such as not contiuing to run a unpayable deficit (basic math, you cna't spend more than you make, especially during nomacly) which trudeau complelty faield at. I for one don't really care much about London de jure's screens our laws as much I do that inflation in under control, taxes are low as possible, and our social programs are as funded as fiscally viable.
solo

Con

<>

You did not make that distinction. If you wanted to make an effective argument, you should've stated: Trudeau did not do a good job as Prime Minister. Instead, you left it open to interpretation, which I did within reason based on your debate that attacked his character, not just his abilities as Prime Minister, so the debate will remain on the course for which it began.

<>

It was an act of a good Prime Minister. And evil Prime Minister wouldn't have bothered with such formalities.

<>

(I'm having difficulty fully understanding some of your arguments. Are you reviewing them before you post them?)

Yes, but Trudeau being the good Prime Minister that he was, supported them. An evil Prime Minister never would've backed the Charter of Rights and Freedomes.

<>

I'm still not convinced. You seem to seethe with hatred for Trudeau, which is why I can defend him as a good Prime Minister, as I do not think he was evil. If Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister, Canada would have fallen apart during (and even after) his term. It's still a global powerhouse that is greatly respected in our global neighborhood.
Debate Round No. 2
Farooq

Pro

Had this debate been about character, it would have reffered to Trudeau being a good person, rather than prime minister. I can for example say for example that "MacDonald was a good prime minister" due to benefits of confederation he brought to my country, but I most certainly would not think that alcoholic racist to be a good person. Likewise, even one if is friends with Trudeau they could assert that he is a bad prime minister. Seeing as it is awfully difficult to observe a poltician's mind and modern democratic polticians never do any radical thing that makes their character obvious one should logically assume that someone of my age category knows nothing about Trudeau the person (seeing as I never even met him) and is refferring to the historical legacy of said politician.

"It was an act of a good Prime Minister. And evil Prime Minister wouldn't have bothered with such formalities [Patriation]."

"Yes, but Trudeau being the good Prime Minister that he was, supported them. An evil Prime Minister never would've backed the Charter of Rights and Freedomes."

What makes you think things like this? If someone was selfish and evil and they saw this sort of thing as way to help them project their own populairty/ reelection bids, wouldn't they have done it?

You blamed me in your last rebuttal that I was too emotionally involved with my disdain for this poltician, and this was affecting my perspective. But in that same thing you praise the man and assert that you like him. Couldn't these postivie feelings affect you just as much as me?

"If Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister, Canada would have fallen apart during (and even after) his term. It's still a global powerhouse that is greatly respected in our global neighborhood."

It is awfully hard for one leader to destroy an entire nation's palce in world (though some have certianly succeeded). On your profile I notice you are "against" George Bush, thus connoting that you beleive he is not a good president. Yet has America fofeited it's place as number 1 economy and milatary? Of course not, becuase one America is tough enough to survive much mismanagement, as was my country. In a more extreme example the Roman Empire survived the rule of the mentally deficient craze Nero.

As you seem to beleive this arguement revolves around chracter I will concede with this arguement in addition to my previous ones. What makes you beleive Trudeau was good person at heart? Like most polticians he was power hungry, cocky, and had a big ego.

PS: Bill 101 is a Quebec law banning English from adverstisments and forbbiding it be taught in schools, which the supreme court has ruled unconstutional, the Charter was uanble to protect agianst this. Also Trudeau is the onyl modern PM to completly abridge the constitution by declaring martial law at one point during his reign.
solo

Con

<>

Then you shouldn't have made it a point to villify him. The debate is set as it is. Accept it.

<>

And one just as easily could could hate Trudeau and think he were an good person who was an excellect Prime Minister.

<>

I did not know George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or John F Kennedy, but you know what? I KNOW they were good people. I never met Princess Diana, but I knew that she was my hero. Your argument does not stand up.

<>

No, because I had never heard of him before I took this debate, and am simply arguing for the sake of argument. But thank you for acknowledging my suspicions.

<>

Yes, "awfully hard", but not impossible for an evil man.

<>

Irrelevant. I negate this point because it has no merit and I don't think it's appropriate to bring up one indication from my profile without bring all of them up.

<>

"In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death." - Anne Frank

<>

Neither point make him a bad Prime Minister.

He was just a good man that did what almost all leaders did... he made mistakes. He was a good Prime Minister.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
While I agree with Farooq, I wish he had presented a better argument...
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Yes, she became an immortal heroine for the world to admire. Thanks for the debate, Faroog!
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
And look what happened to Miss Frank.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by eclipses 7 years ago
eclipses
FarooqsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
FarooqsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
FarooqsoloTied
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 junctionist 8 years ago
junctionist
FarooqsoloTied
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 claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
FarooqsoloTied
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 cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
FarooqsoloTied
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 Grandma 9 years ago
Grandma
FarooqsoloTied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
FarooqsoloTied
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 Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
FarooqsoloTied
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