The Instigator
funnybrad333
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Winning
112 Points

RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,837 times Debate No: 5426
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (19)

 

funnybrad333

Pro

George Bush is defined as our current president.

President is defined as the official in charge of our president.

Regarded is defined as considered.

Best, in my opinion, is defined as the most productive and capable [president], yet this word is extremely subjective in this debate.

My two contentions so begin are as follows:

1) President Bush has never faultered in his existence

2) President Bush is a rolemodel to the world, leading the greatest nation to an unimaginable prosperity

3) President Bush, in essence, defines benevolence

I will elaborate later but I am currently in a time constraint.
Lightkeeper

Con

I understand that my Opponent is yet to present his argument on this subject. Although it may be difficult to argue against such broad contentions as those presented by him, I am happy to begin the debate by presenting an opening argument and attempting to refute his argument outright.

For the purposes of this debate, there are 5 broad contentions presented by the Pro debater.

1.President Bush has never faultered [sic] in his existence
2.President Bush is a role model to the world
3.The country he leads is the greatest nation
4.He is leading it to "unimaginable prosperity"
5.He defines benevolence

1.
In respect to the first point (that Bush has never faultered in his existence) I seek some clarification. Is it suggested that he has never faltered (hesitated) or that he has never faulted?

2.
That George W Bush is a role model to the world is, to say the least, questionable.

His own people certainly do not appear to think so. One only need look at his historical approval ratings. Starting at around 50, followed by a big spike on 9/11 (other than the spectacular intelligence failure allowing 9/11 to take place, he had really no input into the situation and his immediate reaction was the same as any leader's would be), then declining again, reaching some 75 in a brief peak at the outbreak of the Iraq war, then again followed by a steady decline all the way to around 30.
Source: http://www.hist.umn.edu...

Thus, as far as his popularity goes, he has received two boosts in a very unpopular presidential career. The first one resulted from an attack on his country; an attack that followed his own administration's intelligence failure. The second spike was caused by his attack against a sovereign country on the pretense of the somewhat illusive and elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction (another impresssive intelligence failure).

In fact, his recent low approval ratings have only ever been beaten by Truman, Nixon and Carter.

Other than the spectacularly low approval ratings, Mr Bush holds the claim to misleading the world on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and claiming (somewhat prematurely, to say the least) a victory in Iraq. These are of course but few examples of a much longer list of failures.

3.
The USA is the greatest nation

This may be simply an expression of patriotism on part of the Pro debater. However, in case it is not, I will only point out that this issue is not relevant to the proposition he seeks to prove. The question of whether the USA is the greatest nation simply has no bearing on the issue of weather or not George W Bush is America's best president. That is unless my Opponent proposes to argue that it was in fact George W Bush who made it into the greatest nation. If in fact that is the case, I will be more than happy to present an argument that the USA is far from being the greatest nation in the world and that it would almost certainly have been a better nation without Mr Bush's stint in the Oval Office.
However before elaborating on this, I will patiently await some clarification on this issue.

4.
Unimaginable prosperity

There are many factors that may be considered when determining levels of prosperity. Some of the more important ones are in the area of economics. Time for some statistics.

a) Household income

According to the US Census, between 2001 and 2007 the lowest, second and third fifths of households in the USA have in fact sustained a reduction in yearly household income (based on figures adjusted for inflation). The Fourth and the highest fifths were the only ones to experience growth. In other words, during Mr Bush's presidency, the poor have become poorer and very few rich have become richer. Of those top two fifths, the average growth was $2,500 per annum (the fourth "fifth") and $800 per annum (the top "fifth"). Hardly prosperity, one might say.

b) People living in poverty

In 2001, 6,813,000 families lived below the poverty line. This compares with 7,623,000 in 2007. This represents a jump of 11%. The population of the USA between 2000 and 2007 grew from 281 mln to 301 mln. This represents an increase of 7% (arguably even lower if the 2001 figures were used). What this means is that the number of poor Americans per head of population has in fact grown during Mr Bush's term.

Source: US Census

c) Crime

Crime per 100,000 of population has grown from 2145.5 in 2001 to 2471.3 in 2007. This figure also includes a jump from 2.4 to 3.4 in homicide.

Source: http://www.sjpd.org... --- FBI crime statistics

Again, these are only some examples of a much longer list of rather impressive signs of what can only be defined as something of a downfall in the general well-being of Americans.

5) He defines benevolence

The word "benevolence" is a concept related to charity, goodwill, forgiveness and generosity. It is a term often used to describe a person of good heart. With all respect, for the life of me, I cannot see any relevance of this to the suggestion that George W. Bush is America's best president. Some clarification would be appreciated before a further discussion can ensue.

Final remark

This leaves just one point. If my Opponent simply claims that George W Bush is America's best president because he is currently America's only president, then sadly I must concede the argument.
Debate Round No. 1
funnybrad333

Pro

I would like to start by saying that I have only 3 points. America being the greatest nation has nothing to do with President Bush when stated by itself, and the unimaginable prosperity has more to do with being a role model more so than you currently think.

1) President Bush has never faulted in his existence ( I am sorry for the previous typo, it would be appreciated to for now on use faulted instead of faultered )

President Bush, throughout his whole life, has never made a mistake, or made a wrong decision.

2) President Bush is a rolemodel to the world, leading the greatest nation to an unimaginable prosperity

I will agree that President Bush did not fully create what America is today. That was the work of countless other presidents. The important thing is, he is doing his job, and then some. He has lead the greatest nation without error, and by doing this has been seen as a role model to the world, with unfathomable amounts of people seeking his guidance. Also, by doing this, he has created a level of prosperity that is envied by all other nations. Every citizen is enjoying the sublime nirvana that Bush has created.

3) President Bush, in essence, defines benevolence

A president should be a "perfect" citizen, epitomizing what is valued by society and its people. President Bush epitomizes this ideal citizen through his benevolence. He has helped almost every single citizen in America, and is working on spreading his charity throughout the entire world as seen in Iraq in the past several years.

I do understand you are Con, but please either make your own points, or atleast make a valid counter point.
Lightkeeper

Con

*President Bush, throughout his whole life, has never made a mistake, or made a wrong decision.

Again I refer to my argument above. I have there mentioned the administration's spectacular intelligence failure on 9/11. I have also mentioned Bush's decision to invade Iraq based on incorrect intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction. In addition it should be pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was made with effectively no exit strategy. Once again I refer to my mention above of Bush's premature victory claim. If these are not wrong decisions then I don't know what is.

*I will agree that President Bush did not fully create what America is today. That was the work of countless other presidents. The important thing is, he is doing his job, and then some. He has lead the greatest nation without error, and by doing this has been seen as a role model to the world, with unfathomable amounts of people seeking his guidance. Also, by doing this, he has created a level of prosperity that is envied by all other nations. Every citizen is enjoying the sublime nirvana that Bush has created.

If the job of the president of the USA is to impose his own will on the nation (and the world) then I will concede he is doing his job and then some. If, on the other hand, his job is to lead this fine (but by no means greatest) country in accordance with the will of its people then his approval rating history speaks for itself. I will not address "prosperity" again as the figures above also speak for themselves.

I do understand (or at least suspect) that you have initialized this debate as a joke. However, it would be nice if at least you tried, even if you do not fully (or at all) believe in what you are saying.

You have set out to prove that Bush is the best US president. Him doing his job (even if he in fact is, which I am contesting) is not enough to make him the best. JFK did his job too. And at least was pleasant to look at (at least that's what my lady friends tell me). In any event, you made the claim, the onus is on you.
Debate Round No. 2
funnybrad333

Pro

I will refute your last argument.

"Again I refer to my argument above. I have there mentioned the administration's spectacular intelligence failure on 9/11. I have also mentioned Bush's decision to invade Iraq based on incorrect intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction. In addition it should be pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was made with effectively no exit strategy. Once again I refer to my mention above of Bush's premature victory claim. If these are not wrong decisions then I don't know what is."

9/11 was not a failure in any way. Name a single instance of intelligence fault; the government knew that terrorists were responsible, and in Bush's perfection, he made the appropriate decision. He negotiated with Iraq, but they proved uncommunicative and uncooperative, which prompted a necessary war.
There was an exit strategy, it just need not to be employed. The war is over.

"If the job of the president of the USA is to impose his own will on the nation (and the world) then I will concede he is doing his job and then some. If, on the other hand, his job is to lead this fine (but by no means greatest) country in accordance with the will of its people then his approval rating history speaks for itself. I will not address "prosperity" again as the figures above also speak for themselves."

President Bush is not imposing in any way possible; he is simply improving the world through his guidance and practices. Although now his primary concern is Iraq, just reading or watching of him could potentially help countless nations out of adversity.
How can you say his approval rating is terrible? The polls you cite are biased and should be disregarded. A small portion of America does not constitute a national consensus. The amount of patriotic and loyal Americans, and the amount of praise for a overly-sufficient job as president evidences a popular and favored president more so than anything else.
Please travel to another nation. Then you will see what I mean. During the presidency's before Bush, other nations rivaled USA in trade, technology, education, and general wealth. Now, during Bush's two terms, a drastic spike in America's well being has placed us far and behind the international competition. How can you deny that America is currently the greatest nation?

I do intend this to be a serious debate, and I await your counter-argument, and my eventual rebuttal.
Lightkeeper

Con

Here's my response, taking my opponent's statements in turn.

*9/11 was not a failure in any way. Name a single instance of intelligence fault; the government knew that terrorists were responsible, and in Bush's perfection, he made the appropriate decision.

It is true that Bush knew that 9/11 was the work of terrorists. The fact is anyone who had a tv turned on (and I dare say that almost everyone in the world who did own a tv had it turned on on 9/11) would have realised that it was the work of terrorists as soon as the second tower got hit. But that aside, Bush knew more. Bush knew more because Bush had been warned about a strong possibility of Al Qaeda striking on US soil. Bush knew about the possibility of planes being used as "bombs". Bush knew about Al Qaeda's plan to do something drastic very soon. He had been briefed on these things. The only question he asked was "If we take out Bin Laden, will that alleviate the threat?" All this is in the official 9/11 report. I recommend it to my opponent. It's good reading. One of the conclusions in the report is that the terrorists exploited a gap in US intelligence. Simply put, those responsible for overseas intelligence looked for threat overseas. Those responsible for domestic intelligence looked for threats domestically. No one expected that a domestic threat could originate from overseas. It was a spectacular systemic failure and Bush was at the top of the administration at the time. It was Bush's failure. His reaction to 9/11 was nothing extraordinary. If Mickey Mouse was President at the time he would have reacted in the same way (although perhaps would have left that classroom as soonn as the news arrived rather than finish the session with the kids first... after all Mickey Mouse is a mature character).

*He negotiated with Iraq, but they proved uncommunicative and uncooperative, which prompted a necessary war.

Bush had no standing to negotiate with Iraq. The issue (which was weapons of mass destruction at the time) was not Bush's issue. It was not America's issue. The issue existed on an international level. It involved the UN. It involved weapons inpsectors. Blix, you may recall, begged Bush for one more chance to conduct inspections. Bush brushed him off. Against international public opinion, against NATO, against the Security Council of the UN, Bush recruited his friends from the UK (who subsequently expressed their regret about this) and went into Iraq off his own bat. He had no business there. His actions in attacking a sovereign country on the pretense of (non-existent!) weapons of mass destructions were a breach of international law. He subsequently admitted that Iraq was a "miscalculation".

*There was an exit strategy, it just need not to be employed. The war is over.

I would like my opponent to point me to some sources regarding the exit alleged strategy. As far as I'm aware US forces are still in Iraq and are getting killed. In fact, many more have died after the war "was over" than during the war.

*President Bush is not imposing in any way possible; he is simply improving the world through his guidance and practices.

I fail to see how the world has improved after Bush's 2 terms. Please assist.

*The polls you cite are biased and should be disregarded. A small portion of America does not constitute a national consensus.

I invite my opponent and those watching the debate to peruse the following site:
http://www.pollingreport.com...
My opponent would have us think that all of these polls are biased. He also seems to take issue with methods employed in public opinion polls. Of course they can't survey every single American. They take a sample. They calculate margins of error. They publish those margins. Usually they're less than 2.5%. These statistical methods have withstood the test of time. They are employed universally.
I invite my opponent to point me to a non-biased source of public opinion polls regarding Mr Bush's ratings as President.
I take it my opponent takes issue with CNN's reports as well (http://edition.cnn.com...)

*Please travel to another nation. Then you will see what I mean.

It is interesting that my opponent assumes that:
a) I live in America
b) I have not been to a country other than America
Neither is true. I have travelled to a number of countries. However, as conceded by my opponent in round 2, the question of whether the USA is the "greatest nation" is not relevant in this debate. I'll be happy to debate that topic separately if challenged.

*During the presidency's before Bush, other nations rivaled USA in trade, technology, education, and general wealth. Now, during Bush's two terms, a drastic spike in America's well being has placed us far and behind the international competition.

I challenge my opponent to provide some evidence for the above contention.
I have provided, in my first post, statistical evidence taken from the US Census (a source that carries some weight, one might argue, even for as strict a critic as my opponent) regarding the levels of well-being of Americans during the two terms of Mr Bush. I have shown that these standards have fallen markedly. I now provide one more source:

"George W. Bush's overall job approval has matched its low in American Research Group monthly polling as 82% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse, according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove. " (source: http://americanresearchgroup.com...)

Awaiting my opponent's response.

Please also note that, if called upon, I will provide (in my next post) detailed reference material to support what I stated above regarding Iraq and 9/11. This information is really common knowledge at this point. However, if requested, i will support it appropriately.
Debate Round No. 3
funnybrad333

Pro

It is true that Bush knew that 9/11 was the work of terrorists. The fact is anyone who had a tv turned on (and I dare say that almost everyone in the world who did own a tv had it turned on on 9/11) would have realised that it was the work of terrorists as soon as the second tower got hit. But that aside, Bush knew more. Bush knew more because Bush had been warned about a strong possibility of Al Qaeda striking on US soil. Bush knew about the possibility of planes being used as "bombs". Bush knew about Al Qaeda's plan to do something drastic very soon. He had been briefed on these things. The only question he asked was "If we take out Bin Laden, will that alleviate the threat?" All this is in the official 9/11 report. I recommend it to my opponent. It's good reading. One of the conclusions in the report is that the terrorists exploited a gap in US intelligence. Simply put, those responsible for overseas intelligence looked for threat overseas. Those responsible for domestic intelligence looked for threats domestically. No one expected that a domestic threat could originate from overseas. It was a spectacular systemic failure and Bush was at the top of the administration at the time. It was Bush's failure. His reaction to 9/11 was nothing extraordinary. If Mickey Mouse was President at the time he would have reacted in the same way (although perhaps would have left that classroom as soonn as the news arrived rather than finish the session with the kids first... after all Mickey Mouse is a mature character)."

Are you insinuating that Bush has skills rivalling Nostrusdamus? Although Bush is perfect, he is still human, unfortunately. You seem to think that Bush can see into the future, which, in itself, is preposterous. Bush, with the intelligence and knowledge he had at his disposal, made the perfect decision.

"Bush had no standing to negotiate with Iraq. The issue (which was weapons of mass destruction at the time) was not Bush's issue. It was not America's issue. The issue existed on an international level. It involved the UN. It involved weapons inspectors. Blix, you may recall, begged Bush for one more chance to conduct inspections. Bush brushed him off. Against international public opinion, against NATO, against the Security Council of the UN, Bush recruited his friends from the UK (who subsequently expressed their regret about this) and went into Iraq off his own bat. He had no business there. His actions in attacking a sovereign country on the pretense of (non-existent!) weapons of mass destructions were a breach of international law. He subsequently admitted that Iraq was a "miscalculation"."

America's safety should be valued over international privacy. If we open doors, then why can they close theirs? Their hypocritical refusal to negotiate or to allow inspections was there fault, and there is no proper reasoning behind such action.

"I would like my opponent to point me to some sources regarding the exit alleged strategy. As far as I'm aware US forces are still in Iraq and are getting killed. In fact, many more have died after the war "was over" than during the war."

Iraq's leader has been killed and the country has been occupied. The war is over. The civil unrest that is going on is merely an annoyance and a slight repercussion of there animal-like behavior in third world countries. Our troops still being stationed there is only an action of courtesy to help insure that Democracy is instilled.

"I fail to see how the world has improved after Bush's 2 terms. Please assist."

War theory has advanced through Bush's actions and tactics. Bush has incited what will be a new era of global democracy as seen with Iraq.

"I invite my opponent and those watching the debate to peruse the following site:
http://www.pollingreport.com......
My opponent would have us think that all of these polls are biased. He also seems to take issue with methods employed in public opinion polls. Of course they can't survey every single American. They take a sample. They calculate margins of error. They publish those margins. Usually they're less than 2.5%. These statistical methods have withstood the test of time. They are employed universally.
I invite my opponent to point me to a non-biased source of public opinion polls regarding Mr Bush's ratings as President.
I take it my opponent takes issue with CNN's reports as well (http://edition.cnn.com......)"

A poll is inherently invalid in a formal debate. This is because it can not truely gauge the general consensus unless every single person votes. If I don't vote, that poll is useless to me.
That is why everyone thinks Bush is not liked, but the Pro Bush advocates for his perfection don't vote because we believe that polls are a waste of time and that our vote is not needed.

"It is interesting that my opponent assumes that:
a) I live in America
b) I have not been to a country other than America
Neither is true. I have travelled to a number of countries. However, as conceded by my opponent in round 2, the question of whether the USA is the "greatest nation" is not relevant in this debate. I'll be happy to debate that topic separately if challenged."

And what did you see? Poverty. Despair. Suffering. But what didn't you see? Happiness. Excitement. Prosperity. America is far beyond the economic and social capacity of any other nation; therefore, America is the greatest nation.

"I challenge my opponent to provide some evidence for the above contention.
I have provided, in my first post, statistical evidence taken from the US Census (a source that carries some weight, one might argue, even for as strict a critic as my opponent) regarding the levels of well-being of Americans during the two terms of Mr Bush. I have shown that these standards have fallen markedly. I now provide one more source:"

Please look above, or just simply compare and contrast the current state of other countries to America.

"Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove. " (source: http://americanresearchgroup.com......)"

I already stated why polls are invalid. If you would like me to go into far more detail please say so.

"Awaiting my opponent's response."

Awaiting my opponent's response.
Lightkeeper

Con

1. At the outset, I am not insinuating that Bush has any supernatural powers whatsoever. What I did say was that Bush and his administration were in possession of information regarding Al Qaeda's plans and failed to act upon it. The only question Bush asked was whether taking out Bin Laden would alleviate the risks.
I am also saying that the very intelligence structure in the administration was flawed and the terrorists exploited that. This was based on the official 9/11 report. Since it was Bush's administration, it was also his failure.
I have offered to reference the above contention. However since my opponent has not taken me up on it, it is taken that he accepts that my statement was in fact based on those sources.

Note also that the only relevance of 9/11 in this debate is that this was one of the two spikes in Bush's horrible (un)popularity ratings (my first post).

2. I am not arguing anything about international "privacy". What I said was that Iraq was not Bush's concern, that he had no standing to make demands of Iraq, no legal or moral right to attack it.
My opponent now claims that America's safety is more important than the sovereignty of other nations. I would like to see some support for that proposition.
Secondly, I fail to see how the Iraq situation had anything at all to do with America's safety. Iraq is in the Middle East. The USA is in North America. These are two quite distinct regions. My opponent is suggesting that if Iraq was in fact developing some sort of WMD (which turns out to be untrue), that would compromise America's safety.

3. "If we open doors, then why can they cose theirs?"
I do not know (and I do not need to know) how often and on what basis the USA allows international WMD inspections on its soil. I DO know that the USA is in possession of enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over. Does the USA really have any ground for ensuring (off its own bat) that other nations do not develop MWD?

4. It is true that WMD inspectors had a hard time in Iraq. However, they themselves have asked Bush to hold off until they have completed all their attempts. There is evidence that Bush had planned the Iraq attack some time before the WMD inspection problems even arose. In any event, Bush brushed the inspectors aside and attacked Iraq without UN approval. He could have waited for UN approval or at least for WMD inspectors to give up in their attempts. He did not wait. Is that because if he had waited there would be a threat to the security of the USA? Clear and present danger? I think not.

5."Our troops still being stationed there is only an action of courtesy to help insure that Democracy is instilled."
I contend that there is no "courtesy" in imposing "democracy" on another nation. If my opponent's argument is upheld, this would give any country the right to attack any other country and implement a regime change. It would justify Iran in attacking Israel, Russia in attacking Poland. Why? Because they do not agree with their regimes.

Once again, as far as I am concerned, the Iraq situation is ONLY RELEVANT in this debate to the extent that it gave rise to the second spike in Bush's ratings.

As far as my opponent is concerned, however, the attack on Iraq is an example of Bush's excellence. The evidence is in. Let the audience decide.

6. A poll is invalid in a debate only insofar as using the facts surveyed in the poll. In other words I can't use the results of a debate to say "90% Americans think Bush is doing a bad job therefore he is.". However, I can say "90% of Americans are uhappy with Bush, therefore as a president he's failing to satisfy his own people. In a democracy, a popularily elected president who has such low ratings is arguably not exercising his elected powers in accordance with the will of the people. Therefore he's not doing his job correctly." I can say that. And I do.

7. "That is why everyone thinks Bush is not liked, but the Pro Bush advocates for his perfection don't vote because we believe that polls are a waste of time and that our vote is not needed."
If pro-Bush advocates do not "vote" (take part in polls) then I wonder how my opponent knows how many of them there are. True, he never said that he knows. However, it is implicit in his argument that there are many more than can be gleaned from the polls. I would like some evidence, please.

8. I will not comment on the issue of America being the "greatest nation". It has been agreed that this is not relevant.

9. "Please look above, or just simply compare and contrast the current state of other countries to America."
I do not see any evidence in my opponent's argument to show that America's status against that of other countries has improved since Bush became presidnet. NOR that the well-being of Americans has improved ("unimaginable prosperity"). Quite to the contrary (see my first post).

10. "I already stated why polls are invalid. If you would like me to go into far more detail please say so."
Yes, I would like my opponent to go into far more detail on this issue.

********THE CRUX******
My opponent is seeking to prove that Bush is America's best president. The onus is on him as it is his resolution. To prove this he must not only disprove my contentions (if they're relevant) or show that Bush is "doing his job" or that "America is doing great" (he failed in all these in my submission) but in fact prove that Bush is a BETTER president than EACH of the FOLLOWING:

George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001

I was going to leave this until my last post, as I have no obligation to explain ty my opponent the meaning of the word "best". However, in the interests of fairness I decided to mention this in the current round.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 4
funnybrad333

Pro

1. Bush, with the information and intelligence provided, made the most beneficial decision possible. I believe the war is being over exaggerated, as many past wars have had countless more casualties, yet this one has been frowned on more so than ever before. I believe this pacifism will only kill countless more Americans.

2. Iraq was a threat; they were possibly housing terrorists and WMD's.

But I want to stress this fact, as many people don't seem to understand it. Iraq did possess terrorists and WMD's. They did. You can try to not believe it, but all the evidence points to it.
Now you will say "Where are they then?"
Well, if you are leading a country, and the current World Power declares war on you on the basis that you have these weapons, what would you do?
I would hide them. Maybe even destroy them, dismantle them, do something. Very simple, it did happen, I am sorry that you don't like war but I prefer my safety over pacifism.

3. I trust America more than anyone else not because I am an American, but because we are the most popular country. Whatever we do is looked at by every single other country. Iraq is that emo kid in the corner planning to burn the school down, and no one cares about him so he is likely to pull it off. America is the star jock, and if we were planning that then John and Sean (Allies) would know, and Betty (The UN) would most likely break up with him.

4. If you believe 9/11 is a conspiracy then all your points are hereby declared null. If you retract that statement, then I do agree that there was danger lying in Iraq.

5. Democracy is not a government, it is the absence of one. I believe that the entire world should enact democracy, so if Iran attacked Israel because Israel was a belligerent tyrannical monster, I believe the US and the UN would aid Iran in its effort.

6. Bush is loved by America. Your polls are biased an unfair. The fact that he was elected for two terms evidences his popularity.

7. Well, if you ask 800 hippies whether they like Bush, you will get a 0% approval rating for him. The fact that the media and most polls are biased to Democrats and Pacifists is because they are the people that think they are influencing the world, when in reality voting on an online poll saying you don't like President Bush five times does nothing but cause confusion. [Read number 6 for why Bush is loved in America.]

8. Thank you for conceding that point, and I reinforce the point I made earlier that Bush has been the cause of America being the greatest nation that it is today.

9. Are you insinuating that third world countries rival America?
America is undoubtedly the greatest nation, and who do we have to blame? Of course, the beloved President Bush, the man of perfection that has blessed our country with his presence.

10. Polls are invalid because they are:
a) Biased
b) Manipulated
c) Too small of a scale

For these reasons, anything from an approval rating's poll is useless, as the information is as valid as my opinion.

The Crux -

Every single President you have listed is inferior to Bush because Bush has taken our country and made it into a world power.
Answer this,
If Bush is the current president, and has been for the past 7 years, and our county is currently in a state of superiority unachievable by any of the listed Presidents because of time period restraints, then Why would he NOT be responsible?
Lightkeeper

Con

We have now come to the concluding argument of this debate. In order to keep things simple, I will deal with this in something of a reverse order.

1. My opponent has claimed that G.W. Bush is America's best president. His claim was not put on the basis (as is clear from the entire debate thus far) that Bush is America's best president because Bush is currently America's only president.

Thus, to prove his Resolution, Pro would need to prove that Bush is a better president than all the presidents before him. To assist my opponent in this task, I have provided in R4 the names of all past presidents. My opponent has declined to addressed this issue specifically and seeks to address it in general terms.

He does this by posting the following statement:

"Every single President you have listed is inferior to Bush because Bush has taken our country and made it into a world power.
Answer this,
If Bush is the current president, and has been for the past 7 years, and our county is currently in a state of superiority unachievable by any of the listed Presidents because of time period restraints, then Why would he NOT be responsible?"

My opponent contends that Bush "made America into a world power". He has provided no evidence for this, even though he has been on notice that this point, if made, would be in dispute (see my R1, point 3). I concede that the USA is a world power. However, the USA was a world power for many many years before G.W. Bush's presidency. He did not make the USA into a world power.

As for the second part of my opponent's contention, he has failed to provide any evidence for the proposition put. He states that the USA is in a state of superiority unachievable by any of the listed presidents. He has not drawn any comparisons between the USA and any other country in order to show the alleged superiority. Furthemore, he has drawn no comparisons between the USA's "superiority" now and that before Mr Bush became president. He has not addressed, in any way, my contentions (supported by statistical evidence of the US Census) showing that the prosperity and well-being of Americans has in fact declined since Mr Bush has been President.

I further contend that my opponent's use of the term "unachievable by any of the listed Presidents because of time constraints" in itself defeats my opponent's argument. What he is saying here is that no other President could achieve what Bush allegedly has. In other words it was impossible for any other President to achieve it. The quality of one's performance as President can only be measured in light of what (s)he has done within the realm of what is possible.

Even had my opponent done the above (proven the point regarding "superiority") and if that point were not in itself contradictory to his argument, this would still not prove that G.W. Bush is America's best president. As stated above, such proof can only be reached by comparing him with previous presidents. My opponent has himself chosen the criteria by which Presidents are to be judged in this debate. Thus, he would need to prove EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:

1) a)Mr Bush has never faulted in his existence . I say he failed on this as I have rebutted it.
b) Mr Bush was the ONLY president to never fault in his existence. I say he failed on this one as he provided no evidence or argument at all regarding any other president.

2) a)Mr Bush is leading the USA into an unimaginable prosperity. I say my opponent has failed to prove his point. In particular, see my R1 and statistical data about the well-being and prosperity of Americans during Bush's presidency.
b) No other president has lead the USA into unimaginable prosperity. My opponent failed on this as he provided no evidence or argument to support it.

3) a) Mr Bush defines benevolence. My opponent failed to prove this point as he provided no argument or evidence to support it.
b) No other president has defined benevolence. My opponent failed to prove this point as he provided no argument or evidence to support it.

Therefore, it is my contention that my opponent has failed to prove his resolution.

I therefore ask that you vote Con.

*******************************
Other matters (addressing my opponent's R5).

1. My issue with 9/11 was not directed at Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (although I am not suggesting that I support the said invasion). It was directed at the fact that the administration did nothing to try and prevent 9/11. My opponent did nothing to refute this. Even if he had, the only relevance of this was (for my argument, anyway) the spike in Bush's ratings.

2. Bush himself conceded that there was no evidence that Iraq housed terrorists at the time. Secondly, there is no evidence of Iraq having had WMD. The fact that Iraq may have had them and hid them away does nothing to support my opponent's argument.
Additionally, I never once suggested that I do not like war. For all my opponent knows, I might be a warmonger in the truest sense of the word. However, the point is moot.
Finally, the only relevance of my point regarding Iraq was that this was another spike in Bush's ratings.

3. My opponent has failed to show any evidence of the USA being the "most popular country". I would take issue with this statement, if it were relevant to the debate. However, I contend that it is not.

4. Of course 9/11 was a conspiracy. A number of Al Qaeda terrorists conspired together to attack Americans on their own soil. And they succeeded. I fail to see how my opponent concludes that this belief should make all my points null.
As for the second part of my opponent's point, Bush himself has conceded that there was absolutely no link between Iraq and 9/11.

5. Anarchy is the absence of a government. Democracy ("rule of the people" - Greek) is a government that is composed of members elected by the people. Direct democracy, by contrast, is a government where all decisions are made by popular vote and then carried out by the government (Executive).

6. I have asked my opponent to substantiate his claim that the polls are biased and Bush is loved. No evidence has come forth.

7. My opponent appears to know something about Hippies that I do not. However, this point in my opponent's argument proves nothing.

8. My opponent is most welcome.

9. I am not insinuating anything. I asked my opponent to substantiate his claim. He has not done so.

10. If my opponent takes issue with the methodology employed in public opinion polls, he should have discussed the said methodology in an attempt to prove its invalidity. He has not done so, although put on notice (see my R4).

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 months ago
Wylted
I reported your vote bombs douche bags
Posted by ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
wait... the Democratic congress which had the majority for the past two years... caused our problems for the last 8 years? Wow. Never looked at it through the eyes of ignorance.

AnyonebutBush08'
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republicans control congress for 6 of the 8 years Bush was in office? Also, voting with the Democratic Party 66/97 times while the worst President in history is in office and is a Republican is a GOOD thing...
Posted by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
You sir, are an obama-nation.

If you are disatisfied with the lack of regulation then you sincerely should be disatisfied with the group of people who make the laws for this country. They are not the president rather than they are the democratically controlled congress.

And do you know who voted consistently with the democratically controlled congress?

Why Obama did!

out of 97 lifetime votes Obama voted 67 times.

66/67 times he voted in line with democratic leaders.
Posted by ricky 5 years ago
ricky
bush drove ecomany in to the ground and mcane thinks he should continue this. we need CHANGE and OBAMA is the man fore this !
Posted by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
I am always up for a philosophical debate as well. Also, government theory or policy would work with fewer facts than some other topics. Draw one up.
Posted by Lightkeeper 5 years ago
Lightkeeper
funnybard333,

I will debate you in a philosophical debate any day. Just challenge me to a debate. If find any way out of your resolution, I promise to accept it.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
A philosophical debate based on fantasy and not facts??? That is an interesting, albeit flawed, philosophy...
Posted by scissorhands7 5 years ago
scissorhands7
Yeah I know, really who cares about if something is true or not!
Posted by funnybrad333 5 years ago
funnybrad333
Yea but here people have three days to prepare for every round of debate, not five minutes of preperation time.

I don't enjoy using hard facts often, research is a waste of time in my opinion. That is why I usually stick to philosophical debates, but I guess when someone uses citations you have to do the same.

If anyone would like to debate in a philosophical debate let me know.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 months ago
Wylted
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by Crevaux 4 years ago
Crevaux
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 vervatos 4 years ago
vervatos
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Masler420 5 years ago
Masler420
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 ItalianStalian7 5 years ago
ItalianStalian7
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 Numquam 5 years ago
Numquam
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 MarcusMang 5 years ago
MarcusMang
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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 soldierboy 5 years ago
soldierboy
funnybrad333LightkeeperTied
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