The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

President Bush was a good president

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 16943
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




President Bush was a good president because he went into Afghan to take out Osama Iraq to take out Saddam and taught us that we need to get off our lazy butts and get back to the way things should be. President Bush took our moral and did what was best with it brought us to war with the enemy that others were to cowardly to his tactic's were strict but useful.


I would like to thank my opponent for a chance to debate this topic. Bush was not a good president and I will be proving it. My opponent says Bush was a good president because declared more wars. I disagree and the next contentions will tell why Bush was in fact a horrble president.

Contention 1: Even though Bush attacked Afganastan, he failed to accomplish the main objective. He failed to get Osama Bin Laden. Bush could have easily went in with special forces and have gotten Osama by surprise, but he wanted to take over the whole country and it cost are country both valuable human life and money.

Contention 2: Bush got our country into a bad rescesion, which cost many Americans their jobs. His big spending almost destroyed our countries economy. This was also by attacking Iraq which never did anything to us and waisted large amounts of cash.

Contentions 3: He attacked Iraq which never attacked us. He claimed they had weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. He attacked a country without probable cause and it cost our country valuable soldiers and money. The people who declare unjust wars are bad, therefore Bush was a bad president.

Contention 4: He took a lot of vacations. This points out that he was lazy, which there never was a good president tht was also lazy. President Bush was a lazy president.

Contention 5: He passed the Military Commissions Act, which removes the right to Habeous Corpus, one of the most fundamental safe guards against tyrrany. This shows he cared nothing for the rights of Americans.

In Conclusion, Bush was a horrible president.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1


Counter to contention 1 As for Bush wishing to take the country instead of " sending in special forces and easily taking Osama by surprise people already tried that multiple times and failed If you watch the show 10 ways to kill bin laden the attempts of special ops failed because he could always run our only option was to corner him and then slit the thought or in the beautiful way of shooting him in the head like a pack of wolves going at a deer.

2 By attacking Iraq we got rid of Saddam which I do not believe you wish to say was a bad thing. 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.

3 wrong people say Bush went in for oil right so if he did that could have given us resources helping us but we did not allow it sadly.

4. So what if he took vacations it proves American Imperialism

5. He didn't care about American rights he went to war to make a lesson not just to the towel heads and camel jockeys of the world that were gunna beat them down but to the world not to stand in our way because we will sit in their country a shoot any of them that are stupid enough to stick their head out the door and if they don't peak out well just blow them up he proved America is not scared of prolonged warfare.


R1: My opponent does not give proof for his claims. I'm sure the voters and myself would love to see actual proof that my opponent's claiims are true.

R2: Saddam did nothing to us, and it was none of our business to remove him. It was not worth our American soldiers lives who signed up to defend the U.S. not the citizens of another country. Also, the fact thst liberals stopped the capturing of Iraqi oil is irelevant. We would not have had a bad economy in the first place if we would have never went in Iraq.

R3: My opponent says nothing more than he is a imperialist and is will to trade U.S. and Iraqi blood for oil.

R4: It proves he was lazy! He took mor vacations then anyother president. No one wants a slacker president.

R5: My opponent basically says that it was right for Bush to show the world that we are not about freedom, but for killing anyone who stands in the way of our imperialist aggression against nations that have done nothing to us. He also admitted that Bush, the one that is supposed to help us keep our rights did not care about them.

In conclusion, there is no reason to support Bush, as a matter of fact their is good reasons to hate Bush. He did not care about our rights nor did he care about the lives of our soldiers when he sent them unto a un just war.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


Why use facts when its common since oil is worth money which is good and getting rid of Saddam is good that it was a good idea sure we could have stood by and did nothing while Saddam killed his own people with weapons that no one
is supposed to have like chemical weapons which were found in Iraq we just needed to take the oil and the war would have been profitable because Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil at $70 a barrel that's $7,840,000,000,000 that's a lot of money sure we could have sat around and done nothing while Saddam used that oil money to buy chemical weapons and drop them on his own people ( chemical weapons are illegal for any country to own ) and just keep to our business then get blamed for the genocide years later because we did noting like in Rwanda or we could go in their get rid of Saddam save lives and make some cash. Huh tuff. So we went in fought our war one tried to drill but then the Liberals like John Kerry say we were stealing the oil got everyone all riled up over nothing saying we should pull out even though Kerry was the person who first suggested it to Bush to invade

3 we should not have to trade blood but Saddam should not be bombing the Kurds

4 he was not lazy he was just showing our country wont go nuts without a leader for a while

5 no bush cared enough about us to spill blood for us.


My opponent says that it was just for Bush to basically try and steal all the oil in Iraq at gunpoint. This is just another reason why Bush is a bad president he goes into other countries, which by the way did absolutely no harm to us and steals whatever he wants a gun point. Also concerning the Chemical weapons, we are not the world's policeman, it is not our job to inforce international law. Whatever happens it the perpitrader's fault. Whatever Iraq does is their fault. Bush went into Iraq with the motive of stealing oil, and killing whoever stood in his way. This would not be tolerated on a national level, and should not be tolerated on a international level. The only people Suddam killed were those who betrayed their country, we ourselves kill traitors should we be invaded and sucked dry for it?

3. The Kurds were rising up in rebellion against their country, they helped the Iranian army when they attacked Iraq. Traitors are killed in every country even ours.

4. The job of a leader is to lead and he was taking vacations every month. How is that a good leader?

5. My opponent says that Bush care enough about us to try and rob another country of it's resources. I would like to ask my opponent and the voters a question. If your friend gave you a diamond ring, and then said 'I killed a person for it' would you be happy? Is our happiness worth the lives of other people who have little? Apparently Bush and my opponent does.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
The problem that I see with this debate, comprehensively, is that neither side actually made a sustainable argument with regard to the topic. Yes, you both listed some facts and figures and made a variety of claims but at no point did either of you engage in debate of any sort.

The burden or proof fell on the CON to prove that Bush was a bad PRESIDENT, not an awful human being, and etc. As such, you need a metric, or a way to determine what actually constitutes a bad president and why. After you resolve what you think a bad president is, then you can transition to a consideration of wether or not Bush fits that criteria. None of this happened. You both seemed to be shooting blanks in thin air.

It's fine to have a lot of facts and figures, good even and I commend you both for being interested in subjects like this but you need to stay on topic and demonstrate first the impact of the facts and figures you are listing and secondly you must be sure to explicitly draw the connection between the evidence and the impact you contend that it has. Then you can determine if the action was good or bad. After you hash out everything Bush did over his 8 years in office (or at least the important things), then you can decide wether or not he was a good president.

Nobody won this debate. Nobody lost it. You both will get better at the art of debate though, over time! Good Luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not sustain the BoP and really need to pay at least a little attention to grammar. The entire OP was one sentance. 4:1 Con.