The Instigator
Kady
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he most successful

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  
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: 1/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,080 times Debate No: 1550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (24)

 

Kady

Pro

Ronald Reagan's administration was a crucial turning point in American history. He created millions of new jobs, cut taxes, inflation droped, The stock market grew, and he brought an end to the cold war, winning a zero sum game, and returinig the international system back to uni-polar alignmnet. While eliist yuppies were busy degradig him in the media he was busy growing the economy and repairing the United states from the wounds left behind from the carter administration. He was known as the Great communicator, but will be rememberd as the mas who re-shaped America.
Tatarize

Con

The myth that Ronald Reagan is a hero who fought everything under the sun fixing this country is a myth of the worst kind... "believed" by some people. Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt, committed treason, instigated polices which have been complete failures, and is no more responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union than the pope or any of the other people who claim to have done this.s

I concede that Reagan gave great speeches and talked a good game but this is not enough to qualify one as a success.

1) The national debt went from 700 billion to 3 trillion under Reagan (and to an extent Bush 1). Clinton started paying it off and Bush Jr. has knocked it up to over 9 trillion (I'll concede that Bush Jr. is worse than Reagan was).

2) Reagan first took office by negotiating with Iranian terrorists who took our embassy hostage for 444 days, until the first 30 minutes of Reagan Inauguration speech. Carter had refused to give an inch with the terrorists and lost the election accordingly. Reagan later sold arms to the Iranians in order to fund South and Central American terrorist organizations. He overthrew and supported anti-democratic factions in the region allowing for death squads, disappearances, rape rooms, etc. He used the CIA to actively prop up some of the worst war criminals in recent history: Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam.

3) Regan's legacy are largely failed policies of the worst kind. The war on drugs, trickle down economics, and this national debt which has grown completely out of control.

4) Any knowledgeable historian of any credit will note that the Soviet Union largely fell based on internal corruption. It rotted from the inside and you can only take so much corruption before the system fails to function at all. The Pope, Reagan, Afganistan, etc... we'd still have the Soviet Union today if they weren't just filled with corruption at every level of government.

--------

I for one, have had enough of this Reagan myth. You'd believe he single handedly murdered every commie on the planet and tore down the Berlin wall brick by brick while giving fantastic speeches, rebuilding the US economy having been devastated by the energy crisis.

Why not recall the real Reagan? "James Watt, ketchup as a vegetable, Star Wars, a tax credit for segregated Bob Jones University, The S & L Scandal, trees cause pollution, Grenada, William Casey, union busting, trickle-down economics, CIA sponsorship of Muslim radicals in Afghanistan (including one Osama bin Laden), Ed Meese, extensive cuts in programs serving poor people, Robert Bork, and the tripling of the national debt."

I don't know what your metric for success is, but I think if you are guilty of treason, triple the national debt, and fund terrorists who come back to bite us. The Teflon president is only impressive in so far as somehow people think about him and "don't recall" about him as much as he "didn't recall" about funding terrorists. It's a myth that he was a good president. There is certainly some partisan cognitive dissidence as far as he goes, happy recalls of great one liners he had, or how he wouldn't have stood for this that or the other. -- I think his reputation stands for itself.

I see by your age that you never had to live through the Reagan era, that figures, one would be hard pressed to jump to such an odd conclusion had they seen the day-in day-out stuff this guy pulled. Honestly Reagan is a lot like Bush Jr. but when he sold Tax cuts for the Rich he actually had the guts to pretend that it was a good idea. They have the same policies for the most part save Reagan was a lot better as a salesman (and you kind of blame the first person to screw up with a dumb idea less).
Debate Round No. 1
Kady

Pro

Ronald Reagan's legacy was built upon his strong character and realist beliefs. Sometime this is hard for common day liberals to grasp due to the fact that low taxes and prosperity are not principles that they feed upon. Realist theory enhances power amongst states and affirms that nations are self interested and thus anything but a zero-sum game is unacceptable. A zero-sum game originates from game theory and is simply a winner take all scenario. In this argument I will clarify the fallacies embedded in your statements, as well as furthering my case.

In your first argument you mentioned a 3 trillion dollar national debt which later you accredit to "Reaganomics".Before I get into the extent of my argument I think it is important to realize that it was "Reaganomics" or better known as Trickledown Economics (TDE) that was responsible for lowering the unemployment rate of 7.6 (inherited from Jimmy carter) to 5.5%. Under TDE over 1.7 million jobs were created ANNUALLY every year during the Reagan Administration. TDE is the basic theory that if you lower the taxes of corporate America the businesses will have more spendable money to create these employment opportunities, and that is exactly what America saw during the Reagan era. While Reagan did leave office with a deficit it is superfluous to accredit Bill Clinton for the surplus in the 1990's. In fact I would even go as far to say that Clinton simply just happened to be sitting in the oval office when the money started flowing. You may be familiar with the 1989 disintegration of the USSR? That's right the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend which unfortunately for your argument continued to grow throughout the 1990's. He also reaped the benefits of Reagan's low inflation, high employment. So when put into prospective Reagan's economic legacy carried Clinton through what pragmatically is one of the few positive things he is associated with.

In your second argument you question Reagan's character basically by charging him with treason. Again I will clarify your misguided assumptions. By the carter administration turning its back on the Shah it placed the U.S in a vulnerable position within the Middle east, more specifically Iran. You claim that Jimmy carter "refused to give an inch with the terrorists", the fact of the matter is the carter administration's attempt to free the hostages failed! So to say that he refused to speak to terrorists, that is a complete falsehood. Carter couldn't deliver and in doing so failed 52 Americans for 444 days. Reagan's foreign policy was far superior to that of his predecessors. He not only understood but practiced the most pragmatic ways of gathering intelligence for the safety of the United States. In 1981 The U.S CIA pay rolled Manuel Noriega to gain important possibly detrimental information concerning Nicaraguan contras. His drug charges were recognized in 1984 and he was convicted in Miami. Another unsurprising falsehood is Reagan's relationship with Saddam. At the time the two exchanged words we were allies not enemies. I am unaware of Reagan's support of rape rooms; my guess is another baseless fact?

Ronald Reagan is known for his involvement in the crumble of the USSR. You claim that it was due to internal corruption, but I have to ask you what communist/ socialist government has not suffered from internal corruption? Any knowledgeable historian would claim that it was ecause of Reagan's economic manipulation that the USSR crumbled. You can deny that Reagan won the Arms race? In fact a lot of the debt is responsible for Reagan boosting the armed forces to avoid a nuclear disaster…shame on him! One of the last proposals on the table was Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. This had the capability of knocking missiles out of the air. The dying Soviet Union could not match this technology, let alone the cost. Reagan practically transferred Gorbachev's ideologies. The man even attended Reagan's funeral!

So you can continue on with your anti Reagan rhetoric or you can respect, and accept the truth, Reagan was a great president, whose good outweighed the bad by far. I for one have had enough with factless arguments and stereotypical liberal babble. Ill be ready and waiting for the next round.
Tatarize

Con

You had a lot of words but very few actual defenses. Reiterating the same revisionist history, you've done little to support the actual case at hand. You say that Reagan's legacy is built on "his strong character and realist beliefs" -- well, that might actually be largely true. He did have a strong character as have many presidents his beliefs may have been reality-based (outside of the astrology), however this does not qualify one as successful. It isn't that he didn't have a character or beliefs, it's that his policies were a disaster. We can see this today better than ever, he may have been Teflon then... but today we aren't wearing rose covered glasses and can see how things played out.

Economics are not zero-sum and nobody actually believes they are, if you produce more goods from raw material you actually create capital. I, economically, am a staunch Keynesian. If you prime the pump and put more money in the economy this has considerable success as far revitalizing an economy. Largely this was the policy used during the Great Depression by FDR. There's a certain flip between the Keynesian economics and Trickle-Down Economics. In the former money is given to those likely to spend it (poor and middle class people) with jobs, training, and public works. Trickle-Down basically gives more money to the already rich who tend to sit on their cash rather than feed it back into the economy. Bush repeated this strategy at the start of his term cut the taxes to the upper 1%. The result was that the economic success of Clinton was largely flipped backwards and the national debt ballooned much as had happened under Reagan. Cutting taxes and increasing spending by massive amounts apparently causes debt to skyrocket... go figure! Economically this strategy goes plunk.

Why did Reagan seem successful then? The economic problems of the late 1970s were triggered primarily due to stagflation triggered by shocks to commodities largely due to oil. The US oil production peaked and caused massive shockwaves throughout the economy. This was ended, not by Reagan's policies, but despite Reagan's policies. In principle by two factors, a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, initiated in the last year of Carter's presidency, and to long term easing of supply and pricing in oil during the 1980's Oil Glut. (See: Alan Greenspan, age of turbulence).

You even go so far as to pretend that Reagan was responsible for Clinton's surpluses even though he cut spending and increased taxes over the objections of the Republicans in congress? Clinton's surpluses were largely caused by the massive expansion of the IT sector. Microsoft, not Reagan. In fact, the tax cuts initiated by Reagan were followed by extremely slow growth (~.2%) whereas the Clinton tax increases were followed by large growth (~3%).

The idea that Reagan did X and the economy did Y therefore Y was caused by X is disingenuous for a number of reasons (and a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc). First, "it's the economy, stupid" which is to say it does whatever it will do. It's nearly impossible to predict, and taking credit is like taking credit for wind. Calling the Cold War ending a peace dividend is rather silly, we didn't actually need enough weapons to blow up the world multiple times we probably didn't even need enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world once. He could have simply stopped buying more nukes than we needed and saved a good amount on spending defense. However, there were few things Reagan liked more than increasing spending (Jelly Beans?) and could have cut the bloated defense budget and then spend a lot to modernize the military like Clinton did.

So we see, Reagan is largely unimportant when it came to the economy. The stagflation ended after the oil market stabilized and the Fed's policy to control inflation took effect. Reagan primary contribution was to give the rich some money, which was exactly as effective as when Bush did it back in 2000 aka not at all. Though the spending he did to running up a massive national debt, is largely his cross to bear.

---

My second argument does not question Reagan's character. My second arguments notes that Reagan engaged in activities which actively gave aid to our enemies. He supported numerous horrific regimes who murdered, killed, traded in drugs, later became terrorist organizations, etc. That's not a question of character, it's a question of fact. Selling Iran weapons and giving the sale money to fund South American terrorist factions is an issue to say the least. Giving rise to Saddam, supporting Noriega and Pinochet with their death squads, rape rooms, and crimes against humanity. You say that Carter turned his back on the Shah? -- Good. He was right to do so. By realism you mean that he negotiated with terrorists? You know why we don't do that? It bits you in the butt in the long run.

Reagan started out by negotiating with the terrorists who took over the American embassy, struck a deal and had them keep the hostages hostage until the *hour* he took office. I think Carter might have had better luck if somebody hadn't gone their like a cockroach for the purposes of undermining the US foreign policy.

You are right that Noriega had his drug charges recognized for 1984 and that he was convicted in Miami. What you failed to note was that under Reagan he *STILL* had US support until 1988 (Reagan), wasn't convicted until the 90s (Not Reagan).

Reagan was clearly an ally of Saddam. Reagan set up Saddam in the first place and supported him. I didn't say we weren't friendly at first, my point was that that strategy constantly bit us in the butt. Support Osama Bin Laden (among others, he was a smaller player at the time) as well as Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet over the government the people would have preferred has caused problems for our foreign policy ever since.

What communist government (there's a few socialist ones like Sweden which aren't corrupt) is not corrupt? Well, none really comes to mind. Is that suppose to argue that communism is successful? It isn't. The USSR was an extreme case of this. It rotted from the inside and fell. Certainly it was opposed, but it doesn't negate the fact that it rotted and fell due to internal corruption rather than outside forces. Noting that this is true of most communist governments doesn't negate the argument.

The arms race? MAD works regardless of the number of nuclear weapons. "I can blow you up once" is as effective as "I can blow you up 40 times". Honestly, we would have been fine with enough weapons to vaporize the USSR half a dozen times and would have saved a good deal of money rather than spending a lot and having this worthless stockpile of old dusty nukes. SALT was a godsend, in that it *ENDED* the arms race. Also, fyi, the US had fewer missiles.

SDI? Star Wars? Seriously? You mention one of Reagan's massive wasteful blunders? I debated expounding on the point myself to highlight how pathetic Reagan's policies were! We never came close, not even remotely close, not even one missile when we knew where it was! The USSR noted that even if it worked and could shoot down 10,000 missiles, they'd only need to build 20,000! Not only was SDI an unsuccessful money pit it threatened to restart the arms race!

Reagan was a failure. He talked a good talk, and he walked a walk... but it was largely in the wrong direction. Other than taking credit for things he didn't do, his resume is filled with things he did do which have been massive failures. Take the War on Drugs, the black markets, draconian drug laws, mandatory minimums, prison bloating, ineffectiveness, and allowing the funding for crimes... this, like Reagan's other policies have been complete failures.

A smile and a good one liner... but when you take a deeper look at Reagan you see a failure.
Debate Round No. 2
Kady

Pro

You claim that my arguments had few defenses, I think you might want to read it again because I countered every one of your points with facts. Reagans economics were not zero-sum as were no other presidents, I'm not sure where you came up with that because it is usually applied to international relations. You can not make an argument that Reagans foriegn policy was not a zero sum, his sdministration relieved the tension between the USSR and the U.S by dissintegratig a bi-polar system. Im extremely bothered that you didn't back ANY of your elitist statements with facts.
With all due respect Im not sure you are qualified to calculate the sum of money needed by the U.S during the cold war to win it. Reagan was acting in the best interest of the U.S using the top military advisors, winning the war with out firing a shot. FYI, While the United states may have had fewer missiles, have you ever heard the phrase quality not quantity? We had more power in our arsenal and the Soviets knew that, we also had a range of weapons that the USSR could not recreate technologically.We have the strongest military in the world due largely to Reagan, even though Clinton had a field day cutting spending for it.
You claim that the only good thing that Reagan did was give the rich more money. Im sorry but this is a horrible argument because it was corporate America that was responsiblee for the massive surge of jobs during his administration. Your argument goes all over the place, but you then carry on about Reagan working with our enimies. You have to understand that while, YES they may be our enimies now, in the 1980's they were not. They were actually working with us to give us important intelligence information. You cant predict who is going to go crazy, just look at Bill Clinton with Osama Bin Laden. Im sure if he had had the insight to know what he was capable of in 2001 he would have accepted sudans offer of arrest. However, we know what the outcome is today.
My point about Communism was that it has never been reached at its purest form because some where along the line corruption takes over. This was to emphasize your point that "eh, the wall would have fallen on its own". Would Nazi Germany have fallen on its own?

In reality I have countered every one of your arguments. Reagan had a superior forieng policy and will be marked in history as a president who brought economic growth to the United states, as well a providing jobs for Americans. He had traditional moral values, which was a big part of his successes in office, I mean come on, thats more than we can say about Clinton.
Tatarize

Con

You have responded to my arguments, you did not refute them. The facts speak for themselves. Offtopic comments such as the strawman claim that I think economic policy is zero-sum, or that Clinton cut spending to the creation of stockpiles of superfluous nuclear weapons (the first couple thousand might have been useful), or that Reagan was friends with terrorists before they became our enemies (a concession of my point), or that Nazi Germany didn't collapse from within so the Soviet Union must not have either. -- These responses, beyond being absurd, do not address the arguments I offered.

Reagan's policies have been a disaster!
1) The War on Drugs is ineffective and a waste of money.
2) Star Wars (SDI) is ineffective and a waste of money.
3) Tax cuts for the rich are ineffective and a waste of money (see Bush 2000, and strictly speaking are a waste of income).
4) Reagan tripled the national debt (to 3trillion!).
5) Reagan gave starts to terrorists: Saddam, Pinochet, Noriega, and (to a lesser extent) Osama.
6) Reagan negotiated with terrorists before being president (Iran Embassy).

Reagan's achievements, are nothing of the sort!
1) The economy improved because the shock to the oil market ended which ended stagflation.
2) The Soviet Union was corrupt and collapsed as it rotted from the inside. This hero complex is no more fitting for Reagan than it would be for all the presidents from Truman onward who implemented the Truman doctrine.

You have not met the burden of proof:

You haven't argued any measure of success for Reagan or how and why he stacks up better than any other president as far as success goes. I am no more convinced that "Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he [sic] most successful" than I am that the bears can fly. What is the criteria for most? Top five? Top ten? Top forty? His only successes seem to be spending lots of money on wasteful products and taking credit for stuff he didn't do. He did have some great one liners, the belief in astrology cancels out making jelly beans popular. -- I really don't see how your argument connects the dots. It doesn't meet the burden of proof on two grounds: My arguments succeed that he was in fact a bad president and you offer no grounds by which one could judge him as "most successful".

---

Allow me to directly respond to some of your previous comments:

No economics are zero-sum, this was a claim YOU made and I disregarded as false. Nor does anybody claim that foreign policy is zero-sum. You are battling strawmen.

You say I'm not qualified to gauge the sum of money needed to fight the Cold War. My argument was simply that we only needed to buy enough nuclear weapons to level the planet once or twice, and that Reagan could have avoided spending us into a hole.

Clinton switch our military over to an actual fighting force rather than a force which could only flatten some place with nukes. Modernizing the force and cutting the fat. We never needed enough nukes to flatten the world more than a dozen times over, we still don't. Clinton gave us an armed forces again rather than simply arms.

I did not claim that the only good that Reagan did was give the rich money. I claimed that that was his policy, give the rich money and that it didn't do ANY good!

The job surge during his Administration just like the job surge under Clinton was due to an improved economic prospects. In Reagan's case the end of Stagflation due to the stabilization of the commodities (read Oil). Clinton was in office during the IT boom.

As for the foreign policy disasters you concede that "YES they may be our enimies now, in the 1980's they were not." -- This was my entire point. Reagan gave political, financial, and military support to people who would clearly bite us in the butt in the future. There was ample evidence that Pinochet and Noriega were war criminals during the time Reagan supported them. The intelligence was good that Saddam used the chemical weapons Reagan gave him to gas his own people (a claim we use to justify taking him out of power) and still Reagan gave support. -- These people would *STILL* be our allies if Reagan's policies of supporting evil men were still in place. They SHOULD have been our enemies even under Reagan. They were war criminals and needed to be dealt with later on at a great expense to the US. When Reagan could have simply never given them their start in the first place.

Bill Clinton did accept the Sudan's offer to arrest Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia botched the deal. However, had Reagan not given Osama his start in Afghanistan there'd be no need to offer up such false claims.

Nazi Germany wasn't corrupt. Nazi Germany wasn't communist. In fact, the Nazis sent the communists to death camps, along with the atheists, homosexuals and Jews. The point isn't Nazi Germany. The point is that the Soviet Union DID collapse on it's own. It rotted from the inside and collapsed.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
All in all, she gave a good run down of standard issue dittohead arguments. If she won it would be because enough dittoheads voted, not her gender.

Chug may have been sexist with his remarks. Though I note that the votes for her leveled off after her picture was replaced with that cartoon blank-faced female.
Posted by chug20 9 years ago
chug20
This is the last thing I'll be saying on this subject, since having an intelligent debate with a right-winger is almost impossible since most of them get their "facts" from some talking head on the radio or TV, and refuse to listen to reality. It's a classic case of being willfully ignorant.

The worst part is when you conservative folks start accusing others of spouting rhetoric when your yourselves are doing that very thing. I mean, "revisionist history"? Really? That's the best you can do? That line wore out years ago when Rush Limbaugh first started spouting it. Calling something revisionist does not make it so.

The fact is, every single thing Tatarize states can be looked up and verified from a non-biased source. And when I say unbiased, I mean a source that even conservatives can't argue with. That's because history is history and it cannot be erased. What happened, happened -- no matter how often Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter say it didn't.

In this debate, Kady did not present many facts. Look up the points she tried to make, and I mean REALLY look them up. Not from Fox News or from MoveOn.org, but from real sources without a political axe to grind. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Of course, that would require two things from you:

First, the ability to take off the blinders and look into the scary world of actual facts, not the comfortable facts you get from partisian books, TV, and radio.

And second, it would require that you're able to admit you were wrong -- which is something I've learned that conservatives can almost never do. I guess it helps you sleep better at night.

Take care of yourself, mmadderom. I was once in the same place you're in, and I once believed the same things you do because I was taught that it was right, and I accepted that with very little questioning and even less research. I know where you're coming from, and I almost feel bad for you. Take care of yourself.

Later.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Apologies to Taterize, it wasn't he but Chug who made the sexist remark.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"First of all, it's not sexist to say that a woman will attract more attention than a man in an area dominated by heterosexual males. That's just plain fact."

Except that's not what he said. He said "If she wins, it's *strictly* because she's female in a male-dominated space,". A VERY arrogant statement to make, at the very least.

"As I said, that's one of the problems with a site like this (Another being the fact that a person can vote on a winner in the first place, since most will simply vote for a side based on pre-determined opinions rather than based on the person's skill in the debate."

I agree with this for the most part. However, in this instance, you had one of the participants of the debate making a very arrogant, and demeaning statement. He implied that his argument was so much stronger that if she won it was solely because "shes a pretty girl". That, even if it holds a grain of truth, is an absurd statement to make.

Personally, I couldn't vote for Taterize because he did little more than repeat the revisionist history and anti-Reagan rhetoric that has thrown around for years. To me, in order to win the debate you have to do more than type eloquently while repeating someone elses dogma, which he seems to believe should have guaranteed him a win were his opponent not a pretty female.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
She clearly could win simply on partisan voting. The man knew his sound bites and the people loved him for it.

If any of you folks caught the show The Greatest American on Discovery where they went about voting for who the greatest American was, it was funny. The voting went down to the final five, knocking George W. Bush out at #6. Then all of the previous partisan votes went to Reagan who won. All the reasonable votes were split up between Washington, Lincoln, King and Franklin.
Posted by chug20 9 years ago
chug20
"Wow. So if her argument against the side you are admittedly biased for wins it's because she's a woman? Not only biased, but sexist as well.

Oh, and how do you know "she" is "female"? Could be John McCain himself or that could be some random pic found on the net somewhere..."

The debate period here is closed, but I feel the need to answer your smarmy remarks.

First of all, it's not sexist to say that a woman will attract more attention than a man in an area dominated by heterosexual males. That's just plain fact.

In fact, rwebberc's comment of "...and she's hot" proves my point. In a debate, a person's sex or looks should not enter into the equation. However, online and in a setting that allows one to vote, an attractive woman in a male-dominated space is likely to have an advantage over a male. As I said, that's one of the problems with a site like this (Another being the fact that a person can vote on a winner in the first place, since most will simply vote for a side based on pre-determined opinions rather than based on the person's skill in the debate.

As for me being biased, although I stated that I believe Reagan was terrible as president, I actually read both sides of this debate and honestly voted based on who made the most actual progress in getting their point across. Kady's side of the debate was filled with false information, lacked any form of reference for what she presented as facts, presented strawmen for her to attack without cause, and appealed to emotion rather than intellect.

To your final point, while it's true that she may be a he, it's extremely naive to think that people aren't going to look at the picture that she had up and think that she is a she.

And finally, while it's your right to make arguments in the comments section, it's extremely sad that you have to make arguments FOR Kady and against Tatarize. If she had done her job in this debate, there would have been no need for you to say anything to prop up her side.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
That's it, I'm replacing my image with that of an attractive woman.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"If she wins, it's strictly because she's female in a male-dominated space,"

Wow. So if her argument against the side you are admittedly biased for wins it's because she's a woman? Not only biased, but sexist as well.

Oh, and how do you know "she" is "female"? Could be John McCain himself or that could be some random pic found on the net somewhere...
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"just like the job surge under Clinton was due to an improved economic prospects."

Nope the job surge under Clinton was due largely to an incredibly naive belief in the tech industry. People were getting rich overnight creating a mob mentality of throwing money at the idea rather than sound business practices. EVERYONE wanted in on the next "microsoft" and were willing to toss their hard earned money at every half baked idea out there as long as it was internet based.

Clinton, of course, had NOTHING to do with that (other than his VP inventing the internet). He was simply the beneficiary. And he was lucky that the bubble didn't burst until near the end of his Presidency.

"Bill Clinton did accept the Sudan's offer to arrest Osama Bin Laden"

No he didn't. That's HIS revisionist history. At the time he said it was a "legal issue" and there wasn't enough evidence to try him on.

"However, had Reagan not given Osama his start in Afghanistan there'd be no need to offer up such false claims."

Nonsense. Bin Laden never benefited from the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. He might have been emboldened by that win, but he wasn't even a central player in the whole thing.
Posted by chug20 9 years ago
chug20
Reagan was absolutely terrible, and Tatarize absolutely destroyed Kady in this debate from any logical standpoint.

If she wins, it's strictly because she's female in a male-dominated space, which displays one of the key weaknesses in a public-voting system such as this.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
KadyTatarizeTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
KadyTatarizeTied
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 tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
KadyTatarizeTied
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 Teafood 9 years ago
Teafood
KadyTatarizeTied
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 logicalsoul 9 years ago
logicalsoul
KadyTatarizeTied
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 LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
KadyTatarizeTied
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 KCrump 9 years ago
KCrump
KadyTatarizeTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
KadyTatarizeTied
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 Duron 9 years ago
Duron
KadyTatarizeTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
KadyTatarizeTied
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