The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
dragonb95
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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 14 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,906 times Debate No: 31608
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (14)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Debate

I am arguing that President Ronald Wilson Reagan was a better president than the current president, Barack Hussein Obama. My opponent must argue that President Obama has been a better president than President Reagan was.

Rules

Round 1 for introduction.
No trolling and no semantics.
dragonb95

Con

I accept this deabte. Ronald Reagan did incredibly bad things for this country and I think Barack Obama is a much better president.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

My Case

President: Ronald Wilson Reagan
Party: Republican
In Office: 1981 to 1989

I. Economic Policy

The first place we should look at in the presidency of Ronald Reagan would be his economic policy. President Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, the idea that the economic growth could be stimulated through lower taxes, less government regulations, less government intervention, and less government spending. First we will look into unemployment and because President Reagan's opponent has only been in office for four years and two months. We will look at the unemployment rate under Reagan from January 1981 to February 1985. Here it is:


The unemployment rate under Reagan for his first five years in office.


From January 1981 to February 1985, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% and then went down to 7.2%. What his means is that the unemployment rate under President Reagan's first four years and two months in office went down by 3.6%. This is quite impressive for the start of a recovery. [1]

However that is not just it, federal revenue had been declining at 2.8% per year and after President Reagan's tax cuts it grew at 2.7% per year. In addition, real GDP growth was averaging at 0.9% before the tax cuts and 4.8% after. [2]

Finally, Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie write that:

"During this period, promising technology companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft launched initial public offerings of stock, while others such as Cisco Systems and Compaq (later acquired by Hewlett-Packard) received expansion capital and later went public." [2]

This is because of a capital gains tax cut signed by President Reagan. It allowed the creation of companies like Apples. Think about it, you might have an apple in your house. How would it feel if Ronald Reagan had never become president. His policies that brought the creation of Apple and other companies would have never happened and thus these companies would have trouble growing.

Reagan's succesful policies eventually were nicknamed Reaganomics. When the Heritage Foundation looks are Reagan's record, it finds that:

"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending." [3]

Mr. Sperry notes that Preisdent Reagan's economic boom lasted for 92 months without a recession. This period was from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime. The growth from the President Reagan's boom lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War 2. [3]

II. Cold War

Now let's move on to one of the president's greatest achievements: defeating the USSR, the greatest threat to our country ever. There were three factors that brought down the Evil Empire:

1. Military Strategy - When President Reagan entered office, military morale was low and so was the pay. President Carter had cut a lot of programs in the military. Under the Reagan Administration, military spending skyrocketed in the crusade against communism. This included the famous SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) programs and several over and covert missions to aid anti-communists guerrilla forces in Central America, South America, Africa, and Afghanistan.

2. Economic Strategy - Yes, Reaganomics helped win the Cold War. The recovering economy helped President Reagan's military buildup. The free market capitalist United States was too much for the USSR which had an its inefficient command-directed communist economic system.

3. Political Strategy - Politics played a role to in defeating the reds. With a strong ally in British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Reagan launched a global political form of blitzkrieg on the USSR and other communist political leaders. The reds had seriously underestimated the American president and saw him as a "warmonger".

Together, these strategies defeated the USSR and by January 1989 when President Reagan left office the USSR was in great trouble. In 1991, the USSR would collapse. Soviet Head of State Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (re-structuring) and glasnost (openness) proved too little, too late. Gorbachev told the History Channel in 2002, "I don't know what would have happened had [Reagan] not been there." [4,5]

President: Barack Hussein Obama
Party: Democrat
In Office: 2009 to the Present

BO (Barack Obama for short) was elected after the 2008 economic recession. Like Franklin Roosevelt, BO lived in a magical liberal fairy tale (see my Reagan vs. FDR debate) where a demand-side strategy could save the economy and the top 50% could take care of the poor 50%. BO passed a bailout for the big banks and a stimulus package to save the economy from a terrible recession, but instead we are in a terrible recession, let's look at his unemployment rate:


Obama's U-3 unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate peaked at 10% during his presidency. Now its at 7.7% which means that unemployment under him has dropped by 2.3%, a very weak showing when compared to the gipper. [6] For more, watch the video. Don't worry, were not done yet:

Growth of GDP after past recessions.

BO's record in real GDP sucks too and then we have the national debt. Under President Reagan, the debt went from $1 trillion to $2.6 trillion, but under BO it goes from $12 trillion to well around $16.5 trillion by now. He practically has made it impossible to pay back in our times. [7]

II. Foreign Policy

Despite the death of Osama Bin Laden and other leading terrorists, mistake over mistake over mistake have been made many times. Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Instead of verifying, BO seems to just trust. Let's look at the record.

Libya - The BO administration and the State Department put faith in a bunch of local militias to protect our embassy rather than the Marines. The result? Four Americans dead, including an ambassador, when our embassy and a CIA post were attacked. [8]

Syria - The BO administration put Saudi Arabia and the Qataris in charge of supplying the rebels against the Assad regime, but rather these two nations don't want pro-democracy forces in charge of Syria. Instead they supply radical Muslim factions that hate the US. [8]

Egypt - The BO administration trusted Muslim radicals to build a fair democratic government. Instead, they plugged in sharia law and we did nothing. Billions in wasteful US aid has continued without being interrupted. [8]

Pakistan - The BO administration has failed again here when they continue to pay billions to a regime that supports the killing of US troops and shields terrorists. BO and his allies pretend that they are our friends while they cash the checks for their military. [8]

Trust is for your wife, not diplomacy.

Conclusion

I have proven that Ronald Reagan is a better president economically and in foreign policy to BO. Team Reagan!

Sources

1. http://portalseven.com...
2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.
3.
Sperry, Peter B. "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.
4. Gaffney, Dennis and Peter Gaffney. The Seven Day-Scholar: The Presidents. 2012.
5. Morelock, Jerry D. "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." Armchair General IX.5 (2012): 18-19.
6. http://portalseven.com...
7. http://www.skymachines.com...
8. Peters, Ralph. "Trust Isn't a Strategy." Armchair General X.2 (2013): 8.





dragonb95

Con

Thank you for starting this debate and posting your contentions so punctually and lucidly.

I would like to begin with my rebuttals for the affirmation's contentions. The burden of the proof is equal in this debate. I also reject the limit to Reagan's first four years and two months. Let's talk about all of Reagan and all of Obama.

I. ECONOMIC POLICY

My opponent said that Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, however, supply-side ecnomics has proven a failure after three decades [1]. Reagan's ideas of supply-side economics were inferior to the economics presented by Clinton and Obama's tax increases on the rich. [1] Here is a quote from [1]
"When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s."
Supply-side economics is a failure.

My opponent shows a chart of the unemployment rate during Reagan's presidency, however you can see on the chart yourself that in his first term he raised the unemployment by three percent! Sure, he lowered it again, but many jobs were lost from 82 to 84, regardless of whether they were created later.

My opponent said that those figures are quite favorable for the start of a recovery and cited a source, however I would like to note that his source merely gave him the chart and not the opinion on the "recovery".

My opponent cited federal revenue statistics, however I would like to note that Obama picked up the presidency in a quite literal economic free-fall. You can't judge a captain if he can't immediately sail a ship out of a sinking ocean. The state of the economy before Obama took office was much worse than when Reagan took office. It would be impossible to expect Obama to somehow cure our country from death in his first four years.

My opponent also cited Reagan's tax cuts, but as I have stated before, his tax cuts were actually very detrimental to our nation. Reagonomics is a failure.

My opponent says that Apple started under Reagan, so Reagan is responsible for Apple. This is selective and falacious. Apple seems to be doing pretty fine under Barack Obama too... I would also like to mention that my opponent has not cited any of Reagan's "policies" that magically created Apple.

It is fallacious thinking to believe that Reagan's actions led to any of his economic feats because 1, my opponent has not cited any, and 2, he didn't. We are not debating administrations. I want to, and I'm sure the voters want to know what Reagan did to help the economy.

II. Cold War
My opponent said that Reagan stopped the Cold War. This is so false. First of all, the cold war didn't end during his presidency. Second of all, it is a myth that he stopped the war [2]. I would like to quote [2].
"Among Mr. Reagan’s most devoted followers, an entire mythology has developed. Theirs is what might be called the triumphal school
of interpretation: the president spoke, the Soviets quaked, the wall came down."
I encourage the affirmation to read this article. It points out that Gorbachev was the real force that took down the Soviet Union.

Also, here are two bad things Reagan did. Really bad.

1. The Iran Contra
This video tells you more than you will ever need to know about the Iran Contra.

2. Air Traffic Control
The first thing Reagan did when he got into office is destroy the Air Traffic Control Union, weakening Union power ever since and wrecking the Air Traffic Profession.

On Barack Obama,

I. Economics.

The chart he shows for Barack Obama shows the exact same thing for Reagan. The unemployment rate raised, and then lowered again. We are at a moot point. He also says that the unemployment rate drop is 1% less than Reagan's, however, we are not looking at drops. We have to look at the hard facts, and even by looking at your charts we can see the unemployment rate was lower under Obama's presidency.

My opponent said that the debt went up more under Obama than under Reagan. First of all, his source [7] does not say that "he practically has made it impossible to pay back in our times." The source merely has the statistics. Second of all, it is proven that spending more in recessions is good for our economy. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has written a book called, End this depression now! about how government spending needs to be increased in order to solve our economic troubles. This may seem counter intuitive, but read an article about it. It's quite interesting. Spending more strengthens the economy. Once again, this man won a Nobel Prize for economics.

II. Foreign Policy

My opponent mentions the Benghazi attacks, however these attacks occured not because of Obama (that is totally speculative), but because we are at war there. It is ludicrous to believe that we can go and aid a country by destroying its dictatorship and aiding rebel forces, while not losing four men. Yes, four men died in a war. Is this Obama's fault? No.

My opponent's argument about Syria lacks evidence and is poorly constructed. Tell me consequences, and I will refute them.

My opponent also calls the Egyptian revolution a waste of money, however they are still working to create a fair government. Also, what are we going to do, support Hasni Mubarak? For years, we didn't give any money to Egypt and a dictator arose. At least the fact that there is no dictator in Egypt is a sign that good things are happening.

Sources
[1] http://www.americanprogress.org...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

My Refutations

President Reagan

I. Economic Policy

"My opponent said that Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, however, supply-side ecnomics has proven a failure after three decades [1]."

The idea that supply-side economics (also known Laffer curve) has proven to be a failure is false to the highest degree. My opponent claims that Reaganomics are inferior to the economic policies of Bill Clinton and BO (Clinton is irrelevant since this is a debate between President Reagan and BO). Let's compare President Reagan and Clinton anyway by economic growth, since according to my opponent's first source. The economy after the 1993 tax increases increased growth. However, this is false. Economic growth under President Reagan was at 3.2% while economic growth under Clinton was at 2.6%. [1]

Still not convinced? How about the fact that Clinton actually signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997. This dramatically increase growth under his presidency. What about the signing of NAFTA? That's free trade, one of the foundations of the supply-side strategy. [2]

Not enoguh yet? How about this:

1. Median household incomes increased by $4,000 under President Reagan. Incomes during the 1990s fell by over $1,400.
2. Over 17 million jobs were produced by President Reagan's policies. During the 1990s, the US only managed 1.3 million jobs per year.
3. Inflation started at 13.5% during the Reagan presidency would go down to 6.2% by the start of his second term. [1]

To say that supply-side economics does not work is highly foolish since supply is the start of economic growth.

"My opponent shows a chart of the unemployment rate during Reagan's presidency, however you can see on the chart yourself that in his first term he raised the unemployment by three percent! Sure, he lowered it again, but many jobs were lost from 82 to 84, regardless of whether they were created later."

My opponent attacks President Reagan's record by saying that unemployment rose during it. This was not the president's fault. Everyone knows that a recession peaks at some time. This was just the peak of the recession. President Reagan's 1981 tax cut went into full effect by then and unemployment decreased. My opponent then attacks my source, but I only showed the source to show where the graph came from. It isn't an opinion, its just a fact.

"My opponent says that Apple started under Reagan, so Reagan is responsible for Apple. This is selective and falacious. Apple seems to be doing pretty fine under Barack Obama too... I would also like to mention that my opponent has not cited any of Reagan's "policies" that magically created Apple."

I cited a book that discusses how President Reagan's economic policies helped create Apple. Also, did my opponent just say Apple is doing fine under BO. They have been mostly losing a lot in the stock market more recently. [4]

In the end, President Ronald Reagan saved the American economy.

II. Cold War and other Foreign Policy Issues

I explained the three reasons why the USSR crumbled AND I cited Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the country opposing President Reagan. While the USSR did not fall during President Reagan's policies, it fell as a result to them. It just took a little time.

Next up is the Iran-Contra affair where my opponent cites the most accurate source he can find. Wait is that "American Dad"? Nevermind. I don't need to even cite a source because it is common sense that President Reagan was not found to have done anything wrong. He did take responsibility however, and the public greatly supported him for it.

BO

I. Economic Policy

"The chart he shows for Barack Obama shows the exact same thing for Reagan. The unemployment rate raised, and then lowered again. We are at a moot point. He also says that the unemployment rate drop is 1% less than Reagan's, however, we are not looking at drops. We have to look at the hard facts, and even by looking at your charts we can see the unemployment rate was lower under Obama's presidency."

This is because BO did not have to deal with such a bad recession compared to President Reagan, the greatest man to ever live. Like I said before, the recession peaks at some point and then the recovery begins. However, BO had less of an economic recession than President Reagan and the unemployment rate is going down much slower compared to the 1980 recession. Currently, President Reagan's drop in unemployment is 1.3% more than BO's and this is in the four year two month span.

I have no idea where my opponent got his second argument that spending is better in recessions. We are comparing the President Reagan recovery vs. the BO recovery. The BO recovery is much weaker and he has spent trillions on bank bailouts and stimulus packages.

II. Foreign Policy

The BO administration and the State Department did not have adequate protection for four men in Libya. We did not have enough security there and the result was there deaths. That is the fault of him, his administration, and the State Department.

I then ROFL at my opponent's question of why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing. Newsflash: They hate us! I did provide a source by the way.

Just because Egypt has not dictator does not mean good things are happening because of the radical groups in Egypt. Remember they were considering destroying the Pyramids? We wasted billions of dollars, tanks, and fighters to this new country that we are not familiar with. All BO and his administration does is trust, not verify, like what President Reagan would do.

Conclusion

I have proven that President Ronald Reagan was a much better president than BO economically and in foreign policy. I have much more sources. Win one more for the gipper!

Sources

1.
Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato Institute. N.p., 22 Oct. 1996. Web.
2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.
3.
Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.
4. http://www.google.com...
dragonb95

Con

I would like to begin by reinforcing my rebuttals.

My opponent counter refutes my point about supply-side economics being a failure by only talking about Clinton. Okay, yes, I mentioned Clinton, but you are getting totally off topic. Also, just because Clinton gave a tax cut doesn't mean he supports supply-side economics, the Laffer curve, the trickle down theory, whatever you want to call it.

My opponent then defends Reagan by saying that him raising unemployment was not his fault. He provides no source or reason, and that counter rebuttal is completely contradictory to all of his points, where he cites no reason it was Reagan's sucess and not his administrations. My opponent is saying that when his administration does good things, it is because of Ronald Reagan, but when they do bad things it is because of the adminstration?

My opponent also says that Apple lost stock recently, however this is completely irrelevant to our debate. Apple lost stock because of the death of Steve Jobs, the failure of Apple Maps, etc.

As to foreign policy, my opponent completes skirts my refutation on how it was not Reagan that stopped the cold war. All he does is reinforce his own point.

My opponent says that it is common sense that Reagan didn't do anything wrong with the Iran Contra affair. If your ideaof common sense is giving money attained by selling guns to drug dealers in Nicaragua (high treason) and then its not your fault, then please explain common sense to me by your definition.

On Barack Obama, my opponent says that Obama did not face such a bad recession as compared to Reagan, but this is false. The economy collapsed in December of 2007, before Obama took office. There is a reason that they call our current recession the worst since the great depression...
I encourage you to look at these two wikipedia articles. One is on the depression before Reagan took office, and the other for Obama. Which seems worse to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent says he has no idea where I get my argument that more spending is better in recessions. However, I cited Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist. The reason the Barack Obama recovery is weaker is because the depression was ten times worse than Reagan's!

My opponent's counter refutation to my rebuttal that it is not the fault of Obama for the lives lost in Benghazi, but the fault of war, was merely a reaffirmation of his point. He just said his point and expects you to believe that he has countered my refutation. War results in death!

My opponent then badly paraphrases me, "why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing". The answer to this question is that we freed millions of people that were opressed by a dictator. Until my opponent tells us about what Egypt is doing against America (aka nothing) we can assume our affairs in Egypt are sucessful.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

My Refutations

President Reagan

I. Economic Policy

"My opponent counter refutes my point about supply-side economics being a failure by only talking about Clinton. Okay, yes, I mentioned Clinton, but you are getting totally off topic. Also, just because Clinton gave a tax cut doesn't mean he supports supply-side economics, the Laffer curve, the trickle down theory, whatever you want to call it."

If I may take you all back to round two, Con stated that:

"Reagan's ideas of supply-side economics were inferior to the economics presented by Clinton and Obama's tax increases on the rich. [1]"

My opponent then shows a quote that talks about only the 1993 tax increase compared to the tax cuts of the 1980s and 2000s. This is a direct source talking about the Clinton economic policy in his early years as president and the economic growth at the time. Con was in other words trying to prove that supply-side economics was a failure by providing a source explaining that growth was better in the Clinton years because of his tax increase. I responded by showing the CATO study that shows economic growth during both periods and Clinton's tax cuts along with NAFTA. I did this to defend supply-side economics. [1,2]

"My opponent then defends Reagan by saying that him raising unemployment was not his fault. He provides no source or reason, and that counter rebuttal is completely contradictory to all of his points, where he cites no reason it was Reagan's sucess and not his administrations. My opponent is saying that when his administration does good things, it is because of Ronald Reagan, but when they do bad things it is because of the adminstration?"

My opponent seems confused here. It was not President Reagan's or his administration's fault unemployment went up. It is common economic sense that any recession reaches a certain peak before a recovery can begin. In the case of President Reagan that peak was just before 1983. It is also important to know that the tax cut signed in 1981 did not come into full effect until 1983. The recovery took steam in 1983, but like I said, it was beyond President Reagan's control since the tax cut did not come into full effect until 1983. [3]

"My opponent also says that Apple lost stock recently, however this is completely irrelevant to our debate. Apple lost stock because of the death of Steve Jobs, the failure of Apple Maps, etc."

Steve Jobs died in 2011. Were two years past it now. There's a new leader of Apple. To say Apple is irrelevant is incorrect, as it provides a key example of how succesful a company is doing during both presidencies. Further my, opponent provides no sources for both his examples. I did provide a source showing the current stocks. This fall is most notably occuring during the BO presidency and its foolish to say his policies have no effect on businesses.

II. Cold War and Other Foreign Policy

"As to foreign policy, my opponent completes skirts my refutation on how it was not Reagan that stopped the cold war. All he does is reinforce his own point."

The only thing my opponent did was provide a quote from his second source in round 2. This quote is not even specific while mine was in three factors. My opponent's argument was unreliable and did not justify whatever point he is trying to prove.

"My opponent says that it is common sense that Reagan didn't do anything wrong with the Iran Contra affair. If your ideaof common sense is giving money attained by selling guns to drug dealers in Nicaragua (high treason) and then its not your fault, then please explain common sense to me by your definition."

Remember, the only source my opponent gave was the TV cartoon "American Dad". What does the actual commission say on the matter? The Tower Commission stated that President Reagan did nothing wrong because he knew nothing about the affair. My opponent's source is "American Dad" and my source is the Tower Commission, so viewers, who are you going to believe? [4]

BO

I. Economic Policy

"I encourage you to look at these two wikipedia articles. One is on the depression before Reagan took office, and the other for Obama. Which seems worse to you?"

Let's see what wikipedia has to say about the 1980s recession and the 2008 recession:

"Concerning unemployment, during the 1980–1982 recession, unemployment peaked at nearly 11% (10.8%) in November 1982 and remained above 10% from September 1982 through June 1983. Unemployment remained over 8% through January 1984 before dipping lower. By contrast, unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009 for one month, before declining to below 10% after that, although remaining high at above 8% through April 2012. Unemployment numbers at the beginning of both recessions were at similar levels, around 6% in early-1980 and around 5% in early 2008.

In regards to inflation, the 1980–1982 recession inflation rate peaked at 14.76% in March 1980 and remained over 10% through October 1981, before dropping in early-to-mid 1982. By comparison, inflation during the 2008–2009 recession was practically non-existent, with a peak of nearly 5.6% inflation in July 2008 before dropping to .09% by December 2008." [5]

My opponent used his own sources against him. This is an enormous fail. President Reagan had worst recession to deal with than BO had to. Why is this one called the Great Recession? That is because of how long it is due to the failure of BO's policies. [5]

My opponent says he has no idea where I get my argument that more spending is better in recessions. However, I cited Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist. The reason the Barack Obama recovery is weaker is because the depression was ten times worse than Reagan's!

Just becaue Paul Krugman says so does not mean its right. I have provided much more sources than my opponent has on the economy. My opponent also had not direct quotes from Krugman to use while I did use more direct quotes.

Despite the fact that the 1980s recession was a worse recession, President Reagan did a much better job in fixing it. Look here at job growth:

Jobs lost and gained when comparing President Reagan to President Obama.


Similar to the other graph.

Strength of the recoveries:

Strength of the recoveries between President Reagan's and President Obama's.

As we can conclude here, BO did worse. [6]

II. Foreign Policy

"My opponent's counter refutation to my rebuttal that it is not the fault of Obama for the lives lost in Benghazi, but the fault of war, was merely a reaffirmation of his point. He just said his point and expects you to believe that he has countered my refutation. War results in death!"

I was talking about the lack of protection for the US ambassador and the others. That is an epic fail. Had there been more protection, their deaths would have been more unlikely.

"My opponent then badly paraphrases me, "why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing". The answer to this question is that we freed millions of people that were opressed by a dictator. Until my opponent tells us about what Egypt is doing against America (aka nothing) we can assume our affairs in Egypt are sucessful."

My opponent just tried to justify that giving terrorists who hate us weapons is good. This is incredibly false. Thye might use weapons against us. Then we have Egypt, which is a threat to Israel, our close ally. Its also a waste of money.

Conclusion

My arguments have stood in the end and have not been broken. I used much more sources than Con. Vote for President Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest president ever!

Sources

1. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato Institute. N.p., 22 Oct. 1996. Web.
2.
Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.
3. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.
4. "Tower Commission Report Excerpts." Tower Commission Report Excerpts. N.p., n.d. Web.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. Carroll, Conn. "The Obama Recovery vs the Reagan Recovery in Charts." Washington Examiner. N.p., 27 Aug. 2012. Web.

The greatest president ever!
dragonb95

Con

I will begin with my finishing rebuttals, and then conclude this debate.

My opponent says that my source only talks about Clinton, however this is false. Read the article man!

My opponent says that Apple is doing badly because of Obama, however this is false. Apple, and other companies, are doing badly because of our economic depression, and because of Steve Job's death.
http://techland.time.com...
Time magazine talks about how it is due to Steve Job's death.
Also, try googling "apple stocks" and looking at their economic growth. They reached their peak during Obama's adminstration, and have been falling since Job's death.

My opponent said my cold war argument was unreliable, however it was a New York Times article that he apparantly didn't read. You should look it over. REAGAN STOPPING THE COLD WAR IS A MYTH.

Then my opponent brings up an imaginary source (the tower comission) which he has mentioned NO WHERE in this debate. We can discard his refutation thusly. I even looked up the Tower Comission for the sake of this debate though, and it is an organization created by Ronald Reagan. Bias source much?

As to my sources on the recessions, you are misreading the signs. According to http://247wallst.com... current depression is the worst since the great depression.

My opponent also says it was called the Great Recession because of the failure of Barack Obama, however the recession ended a few months after Obama took office... check my source! It ended in June 2009.

Then my opponent disgraces Nobel Prize winning economist, who, as I cited in my arguments, says that we need to increase spending and our budget, so that we can improve our nation's infrastructure. !!!

My opponent than says that had their been more protection the death of four people might have been prevented. But then you are putting in danger the soldiers who are protecting them! War is death, and we cannot expect to invade a country without deaths.

My opponent then calls all Egyptians "Muslim Radicalists" and "Terrorists". There is obviously a racist undertone in his argument. We freed people in Egypt. Do you call freeing a nation a waste of money? They have not acted against us or our allies, so how can we call them terrorists?

I have sucessfully refuted all of my opponent's contentions, and he has either poorly or not at all counter refuted my rebuttals.


To conclude, my opponent has still not refuted my point about how Reagan destroyed the air traffic control union, and poorly refuted near all of my points.


I would like to remind voters to vote based on what has been side on this debate, and not opinions and facts outside of this debate. I am quite confident I have lost this debate, merely because of the audience voting. Pro, I am not educated properly on political history. Please do not let me represent your views of the democratic party. Ronald Reagan was an evil villain, and if I can't prove it, I'm sure some one else can. Reagan went insane with dementia near the end of his term and destroyed our nation, sending us backwards in time.

Thanks for starting the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by koloman84 1 year ago
koloman84
1Historygenius is right, you shouldn't vote like that.
Posted by koloman84 1 year ago
koloman84
Ronald Reagan rocked I was devastated when he died
Posted by TheRanjit 2 years ago
TheRanjit
Yeah Ronald Regan is best president,he save American pride.
Posted by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
That's not a good reason to vote in a debate.
Posted by brianjustin3709 2 years ago
brianjustin3709
I can't vote but I will say I have 4 votes and All the Votes are for dragonb95 so he gets 28 points
because I like barack obama.
Posted by 1970vu 3 years ago
1970vu
Guys Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama came from two totally different times.
Posted by davidw 4 years ago
davidw
I think con should have brought up the rest of the recessions.

Every Republican (and most Democratic) president has entered into one or more recessions and gotten out of them. Was Reagan's better or worse than average?

On the other hand, if you simply use a bit of logic, it is unfair to compare just any recession with just any other. the 1980 and 1981 recessions were caused by the same fed chairman (Volcker) to eliminate inflation (and the high interest rates, which were high because inflation was high). The actual fundamentals of the economy were incredible by today's' standards (yes, even with the oil crisis). We were the number one exporter of manufactured goods, the number one creditor nation. t Now we are number one importer of manufactured goods and number one debtor nation.

Reagan is the worst president we ever had because he did nothing to stop the more fundamental problems or our economy. He fixed the recession he started, true. But so did a lot of presidents. The wheels of deregulation he put in place helped destroy this country as the nation began this nightmare of free trade and deregulatory policies that contributed to the Bush recession and the present weakened economy.

In fact, one could argue that we have had a bubble economy since the 1980's - since Reagan's deregulation and tax cuts. The money started pouring into financial capital instead of physical capital. The upper classes had huge gains while wages flat lined. The country began to be de-industriallized, off-shoring millions of jobs while the rich got richer. Reagan was the personification of this great catastrophe that so ruined our nation that most people cannot even grasp it.
Posted by joyjuice 4 years ago
joyjuice
If the time frames were switched and Obama inherited what Reagan did as an economy, and visa versa with the enactment of the same policies, Obama would be seen head over heels as a better president.
Posted by BLAZETV12 4 years ago
BLAZETV12
my main man ron! Obama in my opinion is a progressive failure just like Jimmy Carter, LBJ,FDR, and Woodrow Wilson
Posted by dragonb95 4 years ago
dragonb95
true dat
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate is determined by how well the debaters backed up claims with sources. Pro did a better job of that. The graphs comparing the Reagan economic recovery with Obama's show clearly that Reagan did a much better job. Con argued that the Bush recession was much worse than the Carter recession, but the data do not show that. Con gave reading assignment rather than pointing to facts that supported his case. The argue against Reaganomics, which Con referenced rather than made, was that raising taxes was not necessarily as bad as claied, but there was no argument that raising axes produces recovery. That's not plausible. FDR was opposed to government emploee unions, so arguing that Reagan was against them is not an argument that Regan was bad.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bombing Dave
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bombing qopel
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering hilton's "conduct" and "spelling and grammar points" as he gave no reason to award those at all.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: 1Historygenius really showed convinced me on this issue using actual sources. I hadn't been to sure if RR's economic policy was all that people said it was, but Pro convinced me.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Retracting counter.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section.
Vote Placed by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
1Historygeniusdragonb95Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoyed this debate and i think "con" really deserved the win. "Pro" lack undermining and answer "con" statement such as that of the Traffic Union. Plus the Senate and the House of Reps don't seem to work with Obama well so it doesn't get to pass and do things he want to do. Plus he pass universal healthcare bill. Mandate for us to kill Osama. Trying to call peace between Isreal and Pakistan. Plus we were already in idk, 2 or 3 wars before Obama came into office. (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan following the 9-11 attack on this nation. Plus he have to end those wars and while those wars were going on so were billions of dollar to keep up with the cost. And because of him these wars are going to an end after decades of fighting. I can go on..