The Instigator
Gabe1e
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Mags2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Ronald Reagan was a bad 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Gabe1e
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,632 times Debate No: 66497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Gabe1e

Con

Rules:

1. Forfeiting is an automatic loss, unless you message me that you were away or something. Otherwise, it's auto-loss, so don't accept if you plan to be somewhere.

2. Prove Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

3. Grammar counts, of course.

4. No debating in comments. Only audience may do this.

Good luck.
Mags2

Pro

Reagan armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact that it was widely known Iraq was using chemical weapons in violation of International law. Reagan armed Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in direct violation of a U.S. law that he had signed. http://www.u-s-history.com...
http://middleeast.about.com...

After Reagan sent Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission, a terrorist"s truck bomb killed 241 U.S. Marines. Reagan responded by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists wanted and pulled all the troops out of Beirut. http://middleeast.about.com...

Reagan was weak when it can to terrorism, and didn't keep his promises.After the bombing of Beirut, Reagan promised to track down and punish the terrorists who committed that horrible act. He never followed up on that promise.
To go on with the fact that he was a liar,Reagan illegally supplied weapons to Nicaraguan rebels in violation of a law that he himself had signed.
http://www.u-s-history.com...

He supported the wrong people.President Reagan illegally supported the Nicaraguan Contras, who he called "Freedom Fighters" even though they killed civilians and wanted to restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua.
As you can see, this is no president to me.
Debate Round No. 1
Gabe1e

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Rebuttals:


"Reagan armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact that it was widely known Iraq was using chemical weapons in violation of International law. Reagan armed Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in direct violation of a U.S. law that he had signed."

Actually, Reagan swore that he didn't know anything about the funding, as you can see in the caption on the image from your source. He did not sign anything. We don't really know if he did know about it or not, but we do know that: "The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy." [1]

"After Reagan sent Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission, a terrorist"s truck bomb killed 241 U.S. Marines. Reagan responded by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists wanted and pulled all the troops out of Beirut."

You stated it was a "peacekeeping mission." So if Reagan DID NOT pull the troops out, it would be a failure of the whole purpose. "Peacekeeping mission" means that you do not engage in warfare, you keep peace. That was his plan, and unfortunately it didn't work out.

"Reagan was weak when it can to terrorism, and didn't keep his promises.After the bombing of Beirut, Reagan promised to track down and punish the terrorists who committed that horrible act. He never followed up on that promise.
To go on with the fact that he was a liar,Reagan illegally supplied weapons to Nicaraguan rebels in violation of a law that he himself had signed."

It's funny, this statement. George H.W. Bush did state in YOUR article: "
We are not going to let a bunch of insidious terrorist cowards shake the foreign policy of the United States,” Vice President George Bush said while visiting the site of the bombed out Marine headquarters on Oct. 26, 1983. “Foreign policy is not going to be dictated or changed by terror."

"As you can see, this is no president to me."

Seems like a president to me, he actually stuck to his mission, and even his vice president stated that terrorism won't change the USA's foreign policy.

Arguments:

"Reaganomics"

Reagan had a lot of great accomplishments, but this was one of his best. He made an economic system that involved across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending that helped boost the economy throughout his presidency. [2]

Peace through Strength

It's funny how you say he was weak when it came to terrorism, when he actually strengthened the military. The military was diminished during the Carter years, but Reagan reversed that by rebuilding the armed forces.

His Peace Through Strength philosophy was manifested by his reviving the B-1 bomber that Carter canceled, starting production of the MX missile, and pushing NATO to deploy Pershing missiles in West Germany. He increased defense spending by more than 40%, increased troop levels, and even got much-needed space parts into the pipeline. Those efforts made sure that America remained a top military superpower. [3] [4]

Ending the Cold War

The Cold War had raged since World War II and communism's quest for world domination remained a threat to the United States when President Reagan took office. Reagan reversed the policy of detente and stood firm against the Soviet Union, calling it the "evil empire" and telling Mr. Gorbachev to "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" in Berlin [5]. He was relentless in pushing his strategy and gave aid to rebels battling Soviet-backed Marxists from Nicaragua to Angola, which goes along with your article. Those efforts were critical in the collapse of the Soviet empire and essentially ended the Cold War. [6]

Pro's turn.

Cites:

[1]- http://www.u-s-history.com...

[2]- http://www.econlib.org...

[3]- http://dailysignal.com...

[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5]- www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A

[6]- http://www.historynet.com...



Mags2

Pro

Rebuttals:
Your "reaganomics" statement was in all false. Your statement of this, is the complete opposite of what actually took place.It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America"s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called "supply-side" by its admirers and "trickle-down" by its critics.Reagan"s tax cuts brought a rapid ballooning of the federal debt, which was $934 billion in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he departed in January 1989, the debt had jumped to $2.7 trillion, a three-fold increase. And the consequences of Reagan"s reckless tax-cutting continued to build under his successor, George H.W. Bush, who left office in January 1993 with a national debt of $4.2 trillion, more than a four-fold increase since the arrival of Republican-dominated governance in 1981.

Your statement of the Cold War wasn't because Reagan stood firm, or reversed a policy. Actually the Soviet Union didn't even collapse because of external pressures.Nor did the Cold War end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It ended because of a negotiated settlement that was potentially to the benefit of both sides. Communist rule ended because Mikhail Gorbachev maneuvered it out of exclusive power. It was Gorbachev who ended Communist rule. He did it in the Soviet Union's own interest. The people who present it as a victory of one country over another are incorrect, but it was the victory of one idea over another. This idea that somehow the U.S. beat the Soviet Union has led to failed policies from Washington but also misunderstandings from other countries, particularly the Russians.

Arguments:
there is no doubt that Reagan was loved by all conservatives. But, when Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.

And to add onto your terrorist statement, The attacks on 9/11 by al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden brought new attention to international terrorism. All of a sudden, Americans coast to coast wore their American flag pins, ate their freedom fries and couldn't wait to go to war with anyone who looked like a Muslim. What Americans didn't realize was that the same group that attacked the United States on 9/11 was funded by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Prepping for a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable

What a president!

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.u-s-history.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Gabe1e

Con

Notice how my opponent didn't cite any of these, so I don't even see the proof and he didn't rebut my "Peace Through Strength,"but I will still rebut them.

Rebuttals:

"there is no doubt that Reagan was loved by all conservatives. But, when Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

The tax rate was at an average of 50% the whole presidency, so he didn't "give breaks to all his rich friends." [1] There was not a lack of revenue.. as you can take a look at these charts: (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...) The GDP was at its highest in years in the 1983-1985 period. Also, I don't see how they could have suffered, look at this: (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...) The taxes for the middle-class are lower than the upper-class by much, until Reagan decided to go flat-tax for them both.

"And to add onto your terrorist statement, The attacks on 9/11 by al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden brought new attention to international terrorism. All of a sudden, Americans coast to coast wore their American flag pins, ate their freedom fries and couldn't wait to go to war with anyone who looked like a Muslim. What Americans didn't realize was that the same group that attacked the United States on 9/11 was funded by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Prepping for a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable"

And how could he have even known this? It seemed like a smart decision at the time, because of the Cold War, and USA's desperation to get above communism. Nobody could have known this. If you were President, you would probably have made the same decision. There is absolutely no way Reagan could have knwon this organization would form. Not to mention they actually succeeded in this, Soviet forces pulled out shortly after.

Arguments:

He was likeable by the people

The people liked him for cutting those taxes you talk so much about. And isn't the USA all about freedom, and keeping the people happy? The people obviously did like him because he dominated both elections [2], because he was very charasmatic, and kept his promises, unlike some presidents today Reagan had character, and in the eyes of America’s Founders, character was a necessary ingredient for greatness. Reagan stood for a set of ideas, and when trouble came he looked not to polls, but instead he applied courage, kindness, and persistence to achieve his ends. At the end of his presidency, his critics—from Sam Donaldson to Ted Kennedy—admitted that Reagan had changed the world and had done so with candor and honesty. [3]

The Iron Curtain is gone

Reagan's presidency is often known as Reagan Revolution as it caused political re-alignment not just within the US, but also abroad. Many attribute the fall of the Iron Curtain to Ronald Reagan which shuttled in the end of the Cold War. This made the US the only super power in the world. The Iron Curtain opened many opportunities for trade and negotiations, which latter ended the Communist influence in Europe. [4]

GDP Increase

When Reagan arrived in office, the GDP was at $6.59 trillion and increased to $8.85 trillion when he left his presidency in 1989. This is an overall good GDP, because the tax rate was about an average of 1.34% for Reagan's whole presidency. Instead of the debt, he had a good GDP rating to pay it off if they needed. [5]

Mags2

Pro

The only reason why I never rebutted your statement "Peace through strength,"is because that is the only true statement of Reagan that you have said.

Rebuttals:
"Reagan's presidency is often known as Reagan Revolution as it caused political re-alignment not just within the US, but also abroad. Many attribute the fall of the Iron Curtain to Ronald Reagan which shuttled in the end of the Cold War. This made the US the only super power in the world. The Iron Curtain opened many opportunities for trade and negotiations, which latter ended the Communist influence in Europe. [4]
Some East Germans wouldn't wait. In the summer of 1989, they began seeking refuge in the West German embassy in Prague. By August, there were thousands of them, camped out in the cramped confines of the embassy grounds. Czech authorities let some leave the country but tried to stop any more from coming in. It didn't work. By November 4, the border was opened for East Germans, even while it still stood as a barrier to the citizens of Czechoslovakia themselves. Yes, Reagan may have threatened Soviets, but all in all he had nothing to do with the fall of the wall.

Your statement " and kept his promises," is a complete " With the unveiling of President Reagan`s fiscal 1986 budget, it has become apparent that the President is going to give the American people exactly what he promised them last year: increasing deficits, spiraling defense spending and major cuts in necessary social and economic programs.

The farm price supports are being cut. Medicare is being cut. The Small BusinessAdministration is being eliminated. As the President promised, there will be no tax increase, even though everyone knows that one is needed.

"he had a good GDP rating to pay it off if they needed. [5]"
Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, ""roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether." Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Arguments:
.Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending," but federal spending "ballooned" under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest "" the Department of Veterans" Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

Cites:
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Gabe1e

Con

Again, my opponent does not cite any of his articles, so I don't know which information goes with which most of the time. Also, he copy and pasted all of his information.... I just noticed he did this for ALL of arguments, but I guess not for his rebuttals because they had no websites.

I will still rebut them, however.

" Reagan promised "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending," but federal spending "ballooned" under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest "" the Department of Veterans" Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war."

He actually did not grow the federal government, he relied private sector initiatives and federalism, which had an objective of transferring from the federal government to some private businesses and state/local government. [1] He also planned to reduce the amount of government spending, reduce inflation, reduce federal and capital gains tax, and reduce government information. [2]


"Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives."

Yes, he let them in ONLY if they had paid their taxes, fines, and admitted to their guilt. They also needed to prove they had an understanding of the USA's history, knew how to speak English fluently, and didn't have a crime history. This bill also made it illegal to hire illegals, and required employers' to attest for their immigration status. [3] The bill was not a crackdown, it wasn't even an embarrassment, because it helped a lot of illegals actually become citizens, and it also prevented any employers from hiring these illegals. Conservatives were not embarrassed whatsoever.

Arguments:

War on Drugs

On Oct. 2 1982, Reagan launched a "War on Drugs" that helped reduce the high rate of casual drug use lingering from the 1970s. He increased funding for the drug war from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $2.75 billion in 1986. Reagan also signed eight major Executive Orders related to crime and justice as well as five major crime bills: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. [4]

Economy (More on GDP)

Reagan's economic policies, such as a reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an unprecedented 92-month long economic boom, from Nov. 1982 to July 1990, with expansion and growth in the GDP (+36%), employment (+20 million jobs), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+15%) [5]

Cites:

[1]- http://www.reagan.utexas.edu...

[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5]- http://www.heritage.org...





Mags2

Pro

Reading over my own work, I noticed that I did cite them! Thank you very much! (P.S. It doesn't take a genius to tell whether or not someone cited work!) Also, I am not a he I am a she.

Rebuttals:
"On Oct. 2 1982, Reagan launched a "War on Drugs" that helped reduce the high rate of casual drug use lingering from the 1970s. He increased funding for the drug war from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $2.75 billion in 1986. Reagan also signed eight major Executive Orders related to crime and justice as well as five major crime bills: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988."

In the years since he took office tens of millions of people have been arrested under the drug laws, millions have been sent to prison, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been incinerated in a program that big, intrusive government in one of its most violent forms. And while Reagan did made the occasional gesture, such as allowing the tiny federal medical marijuana program to function, or said the occasional word suggesting a lighter touch might work, those good deeds pale in comparison with an enduring legacy of police and prisons, searches and seizures, and a population ever more surveilled in the name of its own well-being. It was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan that law enforcement morphed into drug war overdrive with a series of ever more drug laws and an attitude of repressive "zero tolerance" emanating from the White House. Here are some of the "laws" of Reagan-era drug policy:

Erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act: Law that forbids federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities. It was the erosion of Posse Comitatus that led to the killing of US citizen Esequiel Hernandez by US Marines outside Redford, Texas, and the use of military equipment and personnel against the Branch Davidians in Waco in 1993 (under the pretext that they were cooking meth).
Zero-tolerance: "Just Say No" as a public policy approach to drug use. "Not long ago in Oakland, California, I was asked by a group of children what to do if they were offered drugs," explained Nancy Reagan in 1986. "And I answered, 'Just Say No.' Soon after that those children in Oakland formed a Just Say No Club and now there are over 10,000 such clubs all over the country."
Passage of the 1986 crime bill, notable for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for the first time since 1970. This act also created the federal Sentencing Commission and the current system of federal sentencing guidelines, which did away with parole in the federal system, ensuring that prisoners would serve at least 85% of their sentences. And it included asset forfeiture.
Passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: Established a federal death penalty for "drug kingpins." Reagan signed that bill in his wife's honor.

"Reagan's economic policies, such as a reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an unprecedented 92-month long economic boom, from Nov. 1982 to July 1990, with expansion and growth in the GDP (+36%), employment (+20 million jobs), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+15%)"_____(Nice copy and paste!!!!!!)_______

Reduction in government spending and regulation in cuts in taxes? That's a joke, right? 92 month long economic boom? If anything, it was a 92 month federal debt! In January 1981 (when Reagan took office,) it was 934 billion. When he departed from office, debt was a whopping 2.7 trillion dollars! These were the consequences of Reagan's reckless tax-cutting continued under his successor, George H.W. Bush!

Arguments:

REAGAN SUPPORTED THE VIOLENT DEMOCRAT ELECTED GOVERNMENT (do you know what I am talking about now?)
-President Reagan illegally supported the Nicaraguan Contras, who he called "Freedom Fighters" even though they killed civilians and wanted to restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua.

His administration had more documented corruption than any president in U.S history
- At least 138 Reagan administration officials, were investigated, indicated or convicted of crimes. Sounds sketchy to me.
Secretary of the Interior " Indicted on 41 felonies
Attorney General " resigned after investigations of corruption
Secretary of Defense " charged with Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned before going to trial
Two National Security Advisors " plead guilty to Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned
Three high ranking CIA officials were convicted and pardoned for Iran-Contra crimes.
At least 9 Reagan appointees were convicted of perjury, lying to Congress, obstruction of Congress or contempt of Congress.
I don't think there will be any rebuttals to that!!!

Reagan set new records for budge deficits:
After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan"s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only 8 years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the budget deficits, all 8 of the budgets passed by Congress had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan.

CITES:
http://jeff61b.hubpages.com...
https://consortiumnews.com...
http://stopthedrugwar.org...
do you notice how I cited them, opponent?!
Debate Round No. 4
Gabe1e

Con

Obviously my opponent does not know how to properly cite... usually, people put a [1] next to their argument, then at the bottom, put a [1]- (link). Genius. Also, I don't see anywhere that I called him a female... but okay then... Nor did he even acknowledge him copy and pasting... he just excused me of copy and pasting, when I didn't because my source doesn't even include that actually sentence... it just includes the information I used to put that sentence together... Please include where it says that exact sentence in my article. It's nowhere.

Again.. *sigh* once again, he puts articles up that are against Ronald Reagan, not to mention he COPIED AND PASTED. AGAIN. His last argument is the EXACT WORDS AS HIS HUBPAGES.COM ARTICLE.

These arguments are plagiarized, BUT AGAIN, I will still rebut them.

"His administration had more documented corruption than any president in U.S history
- At least 138 Reagan administration officials, were investigated, indicated or convicted of crimes. Sounds sketchy to me.
Secretary of the Interior " Indicted on 41 felonies
Attorney General " resigned after investigations of corruption
Secretary of Defense " charged with Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned before going to trial
Two National Security Advisors " plead guilty to Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned
Three high ranking CIA officials were convicted and pardoned for Iran-Contra crimes.
At least 9 Reagan appointees were convicted of perjury, lying to Congress, obstruction of Congress or contempt of Congress.
I don't think there will be any rebuttals to that!!!"

This is nothing compared to the other Presidents in history. There are 4 other Presidents that had far more corruption than him, please, take a look. (http://www.mostcorrupt.com...)

"After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan"s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only 8 years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the budget deficits, all 8 of the budgets passed by Congress had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan." (copy and paste?!?!?!)

It is not Ronald Reagan's fault we are in this position... it's technically George W. Bush and Barack Obama who have added about $6 trillion to the debt in their 8/6 years. You say that it is bad he exceed $200 billion. They increased it by trillions.. not to mention that Jimmy Carter actually added $337 billion in deficit, so that article you have been plagiarizing from is wrong. [1]

Conclusion

I believe that I have won this debate because not only did my opponent copy and paste, he actually just failed to properly cite... I have proved Ronald Reagan was a better president because he created a great economy called "Reaganomics," he was likable by the people, he broke the iron curtain, and he stopped one of the most essential wars of all time. My opponent then accuses me of copy and pasting, but the articles I have provided never even said the sentences I put up... you can check them if you want.

Thank you.

Cites:

[1]- http://www.dailykos.com...#

(See, Pro?)
Mags2

Pro

I'm sorry, I thought you could have figured out if I cited them or not. I guess it is hard to see if someone put quotations around something. I know what you are trying to do. Bolding words, so that when voters vote, that will be the first thing they see. Nice!! Also, it is honestly not that hard to figure out whether or not I cited. So, don't hate, appreciate! (sigh)

In conclusion to all that I have said, Reagan was all in all a terrible president. He did not only lie to the American people, but had a lasting affect on the presidencies to come. During 1993, Clinton"s first year in office, the new Democratic administration pushed through tax increases, partially reversing the massive tax cuts implemented under Reagan. Finally, the debt problem began to stabilize, with the total debt at $5.7 trillion and heading downward, when Clinton left office in January 2001. As my opponent states how Reaganomics worked, it actually didn't.In the late 1970s " the economy grew at 5.4 percent in 1976, 4.6 percent in 1977 and 5.6 percent in 1978.But people didn"t feel very prosperous because inflation and unemployment were high. The unemployment rate was around 7 percent during those three years, and inflation accelerated, going from 4.9 percent in 1976 to an astonishing 13.3 percent in 1979.

Cites:
http://thinkprogress.org...

(P.S. Pro, you should really take a look at this)^^^^^^
Also, can you understand what I am talking about?
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
For some reason I'm seeing symbols in place of a large chunk of R4.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
It was the same thing...the same EXACT argument, the same EXACT wording. Your way is stealing someone else's work..
Posted by Mags2 1 year ago
Mags2
just move on in life!!!! Also, the funny thing is, i quoted that in the end, but just because I didn't put a number, you just go and assume that I copied and pasted. Just because I didn't do it your way doesn't matter!!! I will do it my way!
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
"Liar."

Your argument:

".Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending," but federal spending "ballooned" under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest "" the Department of Veterans" Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war."

Your article:

"4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending," but federal spending "ballooned" under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest " the Department of Veterans" Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war."

You even got some of the "4." in, you forgot to delete the period. Copy and paste?
Posted by Mags2 1 year ago
Mags2
Being a liar and ignorant was terrible by, con
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
Gotta say, copying and pasting was terrible by Pro.
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Then accept.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
i wanna accept this :(
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
We are not looking at opinions, we are looking at facts itself, for example, I would state if I was debating George W. Bush was a good president, "The USA's unemployment rates under George W. Bush were low, being the lowest at 4.2%, and the highest at 7.8%" (http://www.multpl.com...)
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
In context of presidencies, I would say "bad" being Jimmy Carter, or James Buchanan.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Gabe1eMags2Tied
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: Conduct and Sources automatically go to Con for plagerism by Pro. That is never acceptable in any debate setting. S&G - Con. Pro had some minor spelling and grammatical errors, I saw no such errors from Con throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Both presented compelling cases but due to pro's plagerism I'm heavily leaning towards Con right away. More importantly though, Pro actually conceded a line of argumentation to Con which further tipped the scales in favor of Con. Finally, there were some counter-arguments presented by Con in the first two rounds which weren't fully rebutted by Pro. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. This is a rare 7 point win for Con. I would strongly suggest that Pro not copy and paste their own arguments word-for-word from external sources.