The Instigator
doctorcsss
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Ronald Reagan was our best President ever

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
doctorcsss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,417 times Debate No: 74297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (55)
Votes (3)

 

doctorcsss

Pro

RR was the greatest president in American history, and greatly benefited not only our country, but the entire world.
TBR

Con

I accept. Ronald Reagan was [NOT] our best President ever.
Debate Round No. 1
doctorcsss

Pro

OK well, first of all, lets start off with his foreign policy.
Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. Even a progressive like you must admit his policy of 'peace through strength' was immensely successful, and if we had leaders like him today, the world would be a very different place.
TBR

Con

Reagan has traditionally rated well when ranked by historians and scholars, but never making the top ten. When the public at large is asked, he ranks at or near the top. What accounts for the difference between the public perception and the more thoughtful analysis?


In this round we will look at what are considered his greatest areas of strength;


Forging Policy & Defense

Reagan, far from keeping to his words of “not making deals with terrorists” did just that a number of times! In the Iran-Contra scandal, Regan’s administration worked in direct defiance of congress aiding Nicaraguan Contra fighters in a number of ways, most notably by diverting money to them from the sale of missiles to Iran. While it may be hard to fault him at the time, he did fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who would later become Al Qaeda.

Some of Reagans other military involvement in Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Lebanon have highly questionable results and motives. This accompanying an unprecedented ramp-up in defense spending – capped with the monumentally expensive Strategic Defense Initiative called “Star Wars” by most.

There is little above that would be unexpected by pro, so I will not dwell on the obvious failures. I would like to point out a more topical failure of the Reagan administration with the current frame of our 7th investigation of Benghazi. Regan’s failed response to the bombings of our base in Beirut Lebanon, and the subsequent withdraw of all troops resulting in major loss perceived power in the middle-east.

241 U.S. military persons were killed that day. In the days that followed Reagan made bold pronouncements that we would not withdraw[2]. In a vain effort to save what little face there was left to save, the U.S. and French mounted an air attack that we never showed up for [3]. We left the FRENCH with their paints down. A little while later, in an even weaker move, we launched a few attacks, followed by complete cut and run.

Reagans forging and defense policy has been a lasting net negative for the people of the US.

[image1] http://www.brookings.edu...-(3).png || http://content.gallup.com...

[2] http://foreignpolicy.com...

[3] http://blogs.cfr.org...

Debate Round No. 2
doctorcsss

Pro

Actually, according to a 2012 Gallup poll (1), "Americans are most likely to say Ronald Reagan was the nation's greatest president -- slightly ahead of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton." So not only in professional opinion, but also in public opinion was Reagan out nation's greatest president.

As to your claims of funding terrorist organizations, any sensible president, not even Obama, would purposely fund terrorist organizations; there are two scenarios that often are behind these situations. First, the organization does not start off as a terrorist organization. As is commonly known, the Syrian rebels of today did not start off connected to Al-Qaeda. This is the case with with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. They actually did start off as simply a revolutionary group trying to overthrow the oppressive Soviets and their communism (2). The second case is that which has been exemplified numerous times throughout history. I am sure you have heard the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' before. This is often the case. For example, the US support of Communist China during WW2. They gave millions of dollars in weapons and training to the Chinese, who would soon become their enemies. The reason for this was the much more real and present threat of Japan, with whom we were at war (3).

As for Reagan's involvement in the Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Lebanon and Nicaragua, you are right they are questionable. I see them as wise actions to help protect American interests abroad. The "Star Wars" initiative was immensely successful as it forced the Soviets on the defensive.

His pullout of Beirut Lebanon was logical. Never before had a terror attack on such a scale been experienced before. This was the bloodiest day in Marine Corps history since Iwo Jima. The nation, and Reagan was rightfully shocked. HE made the decision to pull out because the troops were in obvious danger. The counter attacks that were launched were weak because America was shaken to its core because of the atrocity committed (4). And as for leaving the French with their PAINTS (I assume you meant PANTS), well, I am really not sure on this one.

You made no comment addressing the effectiveness of his policy in orchestrating the downfall of the Soviet Union, so I will assume you agree with me that it was a good achievement of his.

Next topic: Reagan's domestic Policies

1- http://www.gallup.com...
2- http://en.wikipedia.org...(1978%E2%80%93present)
3- http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...
4- http://www.usatoday.com...
TBR

Con

Rebuttal

“Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. Even a progressive like you must admit his policy of 'peace through strength' was immensely successful, and if we had leaders like him today, the world would be a very different place.”

It has become revisionists’ history that Ronald Regan ended the cold war. The line of reasoning goes – The Reagan Administration won the arms race that led to the collapse of the USSR. The people who were there tell a different story.

Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow based institute for the study of the U.S.A and Canada wrote in his memoirs that the change would have come about without foreign pressure. He contends that the Reagan military buildup impeded this development.

George Kennan, the former us ambassador to the Soviet Union agrees with Arbatov’s assessment. "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish.”. He further states that Soviet hard-liners reacted to the increased militarization and were empowered within the government to delay reforms that all knew were coming.

A man named Aleksandr Yakovlev, an advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, when asked about the influence of Reagan said “It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal.”

Regan didn’t “win” the cold war. Gorbachev changed the USSR due to many reasons. Little of it had to do with the president who was out of office for more than four years at that time. Reagan himself never claimed to have beat the Soviet Union.



"Actually, according to a 2012 Gallup poll (1), "Americans are most likely to say Ronald Reagan was the nation's greatest president -- slightly ahead of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton." So not only in professional opinion, but also in public opinion was Reagan out nation's greatest president."

Per your link, Reagan had lead the poll three times over the twelve years the question has been asked. This is a public opinion poll, as I had stated, there is a large change when historians are asked. Reagan has never made the top ten in lists created by historians and political scientists.



"As to your claims of funding terrorist organizations, any sensible president, not even Obama, would purposely fund terrorist organizations; there are two scenarios that often are behind these situations. First, the organization does not start off as a terrorist organization. As is commonly known, the Syrian rebels of today did not start off connected to Al-Qaeda. This is the case with with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. They actually did start off as simply a revolutionary group trying to overthrow the oppressive Soviets and their communism (2). The second case is that which has been exemplified numerous times throughout history. I am sure you have heard the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' before. This is often the case. For example, the US support of Communist China during WW2. They gave millions of dollars in weapons and training to the Chinese, who would soon become their enemies. The reason for this was the much more real and present threat of Japan, with whom we were at war (3)."

Our involvement with these groups is the very foundation of terrorist problems we face today. We, with the help of people like Reagan, created these groups. Ignoring or dismissing the fact as “woops” is not enough to relieve responsibility. They are reasons that Reagan is NOT the “best president ever”.




"As for Reagan's involvement in the Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Lebanon and Nicaragua, you are right they are questionable. I see them as wise actions to help protect American interests abroad. The "Star Wars" initiative was immensely successful as it forced the Soviets on the defensive."

“Star wars” did not force the Soviets. “ On the balance, however, the documents support the view that the SDI program, while affecting Soviet policies, did not help bring the cold war closer to the end. Instead of facilitating the arms control process, SDI seriously complicated it, creating an unnecessary obstacle that the Soviet leadership, eager to move to arms reductions, had to deal with. Finally, the evidence suggests that one of the basic premises behind the SDI program - that it would be able to shift the arms race to the areas of advanced technologies, dissuade the Soviet Union from competition, and eventually provide a more stable defense-dominated environment - did not work” [2]



"His pullout of Beirut Lebanon was logical. Never before had a terror attack on such a scale been experienced before. This was the bloodiest day in Marine Corps history since Iwo Jima. The nation, and Reagan was rightfully shocked. HE made the decision to pull out because the troops were in obvious danger. The counter attacks that were launched were weak because America was shaken to its core because of the atrocity committed (4). And as for leaving the French with their PAINTS (I assume you meant PANTS), well, I am really not sure on this one."

Our greatest president ever reacted out of shock? He changed the policy of involvement in the middle east because of the “danger”? I have no doubt that Reagan was bending to public will. This does not illustrate the leadership of the greatest president ever.

As for the French. Yes, we were no shows for a coordinated counter attack. Reagans actual response was “that’s just terrible, I don’t know what happened.”.



You made no comment addressing the effectiveness of his policy in orchestrating the downfall of the Soviet Union, so I will assume you agree with me that it was a good achievement of his.


See above

Next Topic: Reagan's domestic Policies

I had intended to post my domestic policie points this round. It seems you are a little out of sync, so I will wait, and give you the first shot, and respond to them in my next round.



[1] http://baltimorechronicle.com...
[2] http://russianforces.org...

Debate Round No. 3
doctorcsss

Pro

Ok, well before I launch into his domestic policies, I simply cannot leave a few of your 'rebuttals' unanswered, because they are quite misleading. You use Georgi Arbatov as a source on this issue. Can you think of a possible reason that he may be biased? Because I can think of a whole list. Part of this may be that Reagan's policies (keep in mind that the US was the USSR's greatest enemy at this point in time) led to the breakup of the massive Soviet Union. Since then, they have never regained their old strength and still harbor harsh feelings towards America. It is very likely that he may put some personal opinion into his statements in an attempt to downplay the accomplishments of the US and therefore leave the USSR's 'defeat' in the Cold War looking less humiliation. As for George Kennan, there will always be Americans who disagree with a president and I suspect he is one of such.

As for the poll, you were the one who said that "Reagan has traditionally rated well when ranked by historians and scholars, but never making the top ten. When the public at large is asked, he ranks at or near the top." But then in your next rebuttal you say "This is a public opinion poll, as I had stated, there is a large change when historians are asked. Reagan has never made the top ten in lists created by historians and political scientists." These are completely contradictory statements just FYI.

You did not address some nations that also benefited from his strong policies and spreading of democracy. Poland benefited from President Reagan"s steadfast advocacy of democracy. While President Reagan was in the White House, Free, democratic elections were held for the first time in many years in the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and the Philippines. By the time President Reagan left office, the number of people in Latin America living under freely elected governments tripled from what it had been ten years earlier.
The President did more than just talk. In 1983, when he was asked by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, President Reagan sent U.S. troops to Grenada to lead a multi-national force in liberating that country from an oppressive Marxist dictatorship. Not only were the communists ousted, the troops rescued nearly 1,000 American medical students whose safety was in jeopardy under the brutal regime [1].

Finally, you say "Our greatest president ever reacted out of shock? He changed the policy of involvement in the middle east because of the "danger"? I have no doubt that Reagan was bending to public will. This does not illustrate the leadership of the greatest president ever." Yes he did react out of shock. I will say it once again, terrorist attacks on large levels had never been seen up until this point. There is a difference between bravery and wisdom my friend. What Reagan did was the wise action, as he had no experience (nobody did) in dealing with terrorist attacks [2].

Now to domestic policy. Reganomics- "A popular term used to refer to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. President (1981"1989), which called for widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets" [3].
Given the dire state of the economy facing Ronald Reagan when he assumed the Presidency, it would have been understandable had he focused exclusively on those challenges. But he came to office with a broad agenda, and there were many important problems to solve. One that was of particular importance to the President was the how well the government served the people. He firmly believed that the government should work for the people, not the other way around. Governor and then President Reagan thought of the people as his boss, who, by electing him, had hired him to do the job. Throughout his career, Ronald Reagan was fond of telling true stories about the illogical and often mind-boggling " not to mention exasperating " inefficiency of the Federal bureaucracy.

Keeping people safe was always a top-of-agenda item for the Reagan Administration. It took a while, but in 1984, Congress passed the President"s Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which kept dangerous people behind bars, restricted the use of the insanity defense, reviewed Federal sentencing guidelines and toughened penalties for drug dealers and others. That same year, the President signed another very significant piece of legislation which made child pornography a separate criminal offense. The effect of the President"s work to prevent crime and put criminals where they belonged was dramatic. Nearly 2 million fewer households were hit by crime in 1987 than in 1980 [4, 5].

So in conclusion, not only did Reagan focus on foreign and economic policy, but also on the welfare of the people like fighting against child pornography and crime.

[1] http://www.reaganfoundation.org...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com......
[3] http://www.investopedia.com...
[4] http://useconomy.about.com...
[5] http://www.pbs.org...
TBR

Con

Counter Rebuttal

…You use Georgi Arbatov as a source on this issue. Can you think of a possible reason that he may be biased? Because I can think of a whole list.

You have only speculated that Georfi Arbatov “lied”. Further you ignore that the statement was a part of statements from American ambassadors, and Reagan’s thoughts himself.

Part of this may be that Reagan's policies (keep in mind that the US was the USSR's greatest enemy at this point in time) led to the breakup of the massive Soviet Union.

I have shown this to be untrue, and the point has not been countered.


As for the poll, you were the one who said that "Reagan has traditionally rated well when ranked by historians and scholars, but never making the top ten. When the public at large is asked, he ranks at or near the top." But then in your next rebuttal you say "This is a public opinion poll, as I had stated, there is a large change when historians are asked. Reagan has never made the top ten in lists created by historians and political scientists." These are completely contradictory statements just FYI.

This is NOT a contradiction, and I can’t possibly understand why you would think so. Reagan has been “near or at the top” of opinion polls, and never in the top ten of historian or political scientist’s lists. That is shown by your source and my source. Further, your source provides context into polling bias.

You did not address some nations that also benefited from his strong policies and spreading of democracy. Poland benefited from President Reagan"s steadfast advocacy of democracy. While President Reagan was in the White House, Free, democratic elections were held for the first time in many years in the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and the Philippines. By the time President Reagan left office, the number of people in Latin America living under freely elected governments tripled from what it had been ten years earlier.

The President did more than just talk. In 1983, when he was asked by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, President Reagan sent U.S. troops to Grenada to lead a multi-national force in liberating that country from an oppressive Marxist dictatorship. Not only were the communists ousted, the troops rescued nearly 1,000 American medical students whose safety was in jeopardy under the brutal regime [1].

This is a new argument in a rebuttal, however I will address Gernada.

By a vote of 108 in favour to 9 (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, El Salvador, Israel, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States) voting against, with 27 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted General Assembly Resolution 38/7, which "deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State."[7] The USSR government observed that Grenada had for a long time been the object of United States threats, that the invasion violated international law, and that no small nation not to the liking of the United States would find itself safe if the aggression against Grenada was not rebuffed. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Gernada was not some clear success. Looking at the intelligence failures alone, Benghazi looks like a shining success.

Finally, you say "Our greatest president ever reacted out of shock? He changed the policy of involvement in the middle east because of the "danger"? I have no doubt that Reagan was bending to public will. This does not illustrate the leadership of the greatest president ever." Yes he did react out of shock. I will say it once again, terrorist attacks on large levels had never been seen up until this point. There is a difference between bravery and wisdom my friend. What Reagan did was the wise action, as he had no experience (nobody did) in dealing with terrorist attacks [2].

This is just wrong. The IRA, new IRA, going back to the Reign of Terror, we knew what terrorism was before Beirut. To think that the middle east was not dangerous would be to ignore the activity in Israel and Palestine, and many other countries in the area. Why do you think the troops were there in the first place?


Domestic Policy Rebuttal

Now to domestic policy. Reganomics- "A popular term used to refer to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. President (1981"1989), which called for widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets" [3].

“Voo-doo economics” is a “popular term too. The debt Crisis, if there is one, can be traced in large part to Reaganomics. 934b when he took office jumped to 2.7t during his presidency. This makes Reagans contribution to the debt a multitude GREATER than any president since, and about 5x Obamas contribution to the debt.

https://consortiumnews.com...


Given the dire state of the economy facing Ronald Reagan when he assumed the Presidency, it would have been understandable had he focused exclusively on those challenges. But he came to office with a broad agenda, and there were many important problems to solve. One that was of particular importance to the President was the how well the government served the people. He firmly believed that the government should work for the people, not the other way around. Governor and then President Reagan thought of the people as his boss, who, by electing him, had hired him to do the job. Throughout his career, Ronald Reagan was fond of telling true stories about the illogical and often mind-boggling " not to mention exasperating " inefficiency of the Federal bureaucracy.

Unsubstantiated hero worship.

Keeping people safe was always a top-of-agenda item for the Reagan Administration. It took a while, but in 1984, Congress passed the President"s Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which kept dangerous people behind bars, restricted the use of the insanity defense, reviewed Federal sentencing guidelines and toughened penalties for drug dealers and others. That same year, the President signed another very significant piece of legislation which made child pornography a separate criminal offense. The effect of the President"s work to prevent crime and put criminals where they belonged was dramatic. Nearly 2 million fewer households were hit by crime in 1987 than in 1980 [4, 5].

And sentencing guidelines, bail changes, and an ultimately unsuccessful “war on drugs”, this has costs us dearly. It lead to an overgrown private prison system, and more non-violent offenders in prisons than ANY first world country.

http://www.slate.com...


So in conclusion, not only did Reagan focus on foreign and economic policy, but also on the welfare of the people like fighting against child pornography and crime.

Unsubstantiated

Domestic Policy

I think I can stop kicking on the record at this point, but it is hard to not mention at least this point. Ignoring AIDS. The Reagan administration was completely mum on the subject until more than 10,000 American citizens had died from it. The spokesmen for the administration was still making jokes about it even while Ryan White was still alive. This sure looks like he cared about the people.

Debate Round No. 4
doctorcsss

Pro

Ok, so as my final round in this debate, I will address a final few issues and rebut some arguments that my opponent continues to present. I ask that in my opponent"s final round he not bring up any new points as I will be unable to counter them. You are free to try and disprove any points that I bring up here though.
Part of this may be that Reagan's policies (keep in mind that the US was the USSR's greatest enemy at this point in time) led to the breakup of the massive Soviet Union.

I have shown this to be untrue, and the point has not been countered.
Ok, I will gladly counter your argument that he did not end the Cold War. Mr Gorbachev himself answers the question in black and white, regardless of what politicians and historians say: "[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. " If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable." It was this realization that brought Gorbachev to the negotiations table. "If Reagan hadn't been president"if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place"Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed. Those other politicians would have been too traditional, too cautious, to push such radical proposals (zero nukes and SDI) or to take Gorbachev's radicalism at face value. (There's no need to speculate on this point. When Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan in 1989, U.S.-Soviet relations took a huge step backward; it took nearly a year for Bush and his advisers to realize that Gorby was for real.)"[1].

Now on to my concluding rebuttals and statements on Domestic Policy.

"Voo-doo economics" is a "popular term too. The debt Crisis, if there is one, can be traced in large part to Reaganomics. 934b when he took office jumped to 2.7t during his presidency. This makes Reagans contribution to the debt a multitude GREATER than any president since, and about 5x Obamas contribution to the debt.
https://consortiumnews.com......

OK, first of all, consortium news provides no background whatsoever as to where they obtain their figures for debt acclimation. You must have really been digging to find a source to support that point because here are several, reputable sources that tell a very different story: About News, the Washington Post, Forbes.com, Business Insider, Fact Checker.org, you name it. Granted, Reagan added a higher percentage to the debt but once again, context, context, context.
I will once again repeat my previous comments because you seem to have skipped over them: Look at the dire state of the economy facing Ronald Reagan when he assumed the Presidency! Look at the circumstances the nation, and the whole world in fact, was in when he assumed office! At this point, the national debt was about one trillion, to which Reagan added 1.8 trillion. [6] This is large if you look at the percentage increase, but if you take in the CONTEXT of the economy and foreign affairs

"Given the dire state of the economy...."
Unsubstantiated hero worship.

Well there you go. Just say it is unsubstantiated, but don"t bother to try and show that it is wrong, just say it is and call it "hero worship." Nice going man. Just for the heck of it, I will show you that it is indeed quite substantiated.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years)." [7] If you want to argue with the Wall Street Journal, be my guest.
And now, here comes the PURE GOLD. Let us look at what his policies were composed of, and the effect that they had on the american economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan"s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That"s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan"s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Sometimes the truth just seems too good to be true doesn"t it? :) But in this case, the facts show that this was indeed true.
To fact check, see sources [7, 8, and 9].

Conclusion:
My opponent asserts that Ronald Reagan did not end the Cold War, and his foreign policy was harmful rather than helpful to the global community and our nation. However, Gorbachev himself admits that the USSR was pushed over the edge by Reagan"s aggressive military growth. My opponent also fails to admit that these policies, after causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, led to freedom for millions of oppressed peoples in Eastern Europe.
On the Domestic front, my opponent fails to address the major upswing of the economy spurred on by Reagan"s stellar economic policies. The facts are black and white. His only rebuttal is that my claims were "unsubstantiated" while in reality were supported by numerous sources.
Ronald Reagan was an amazing president who led our country brilliantly through extremely difficult times. Not only did he accomplish amazing feats foreign and domestic, but he kept a light-hearted attitude during this time which was like a breath of fresh air to the american people. Just as a final tribute, here are a few of his best quips and comments making a grave situation seem lighter:
"Honey, I forgot to duck." -to his wife, Nancy, after surviving the assassination attempt"
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Thank you for the great debate, and I hope to have caused you to think a little bit on this amazing American.

P.S. Just curious, but if Ronald Reagan was not the best president, then who was?

[1] http://www.slate.com...
[2] http://www.un.org...
[3] http://www.reaganfoundation.org...
[4] http://www.usatoday.com...
[5] http://www.pbs.org...
[6] http://useconomy.about.com...
[7] http://www.forbes.com...
[8] http://www.shmoop.com...
[9] http://www.forbes.com...
TBR

Con

Conclusion

Throughout this debate pro picked and choose the issues he would respond to, dropping many points along the way. This is very similar to the issue at hand regarding Ronald Reagan. The record of our 40th president is not a bed of roses with no thorns.

When the right of the political spectrum looks back on the two terms of Reagan through colored glasses they do so ignoring a great amount of harm his policies had done to a good deal of Americans and the world. If you want to know who the most popular president is to the right of the political spectrum, he may very well be just that. America, however, is not made only of Republicans who wish for a modern hero to worship.

Reagan’s apathy for a devastating disease cost tens of thousands of American life’s, and set back research years. Regardless of his personal feelings regarding homosexuality, this is a travesty, only highlighting that Reagan thought some Americans worth attention, and others none.

Reagan’s rhetoric on military matters led to some catastrophic events for those caught in the crossfire of a war between superpowers. The economic implications still shake our foundation today. Coupled with an economic policy that has so badly bifurcated our country that we are now living a new age of robber barons.

Finally, unaddressed by pro, the Reagan administration spent a good deal of time and energy helping those who would eventually become a direct threat to our country. In the most dramatic instance, doing so in direct violation of Congress illegally.

Reagan has merits to hang his legacy on, there is no doubt. We have had worse presidents, but, importantly to this debate, we have had better. Thankfully.
Debate Round No. 5
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larsfox1997 2 years ago
larsfox1997
heck yea anyone is better than that black president now
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
That does sound messed up. Just leave some good RFDs in some comment sections and send Bluesteel F16 and Airmax proof you can vote in a reasonable way.
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Why is it that he can vote after being removed several times and I had just one vote that was removed and I got banned from voting all together? It's really annoying.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
It is true. He's done it on my debates on and other debates as well. They always get removed thankfully.
Posted by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
Its pretty true is what it really is
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
That's pretty mean
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Brian the liberal just needs to stop voting. Not only can he not separate bias from his votes, he isn't even intelligent enough to know how to hide it.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Part 1
Nice debate on both sides.
I assume burden of proof is shared.
Pro briefly mentions the Cold War and peace through strength. Should have been much longer. Waste of round, gives Con and advantage.
Con discusses the polls, and how there is a disparage between popular US and "experts" (who specifically?) However, that in itself doesn"t win him the debate. In fact, I"m a bit confused why he brought it up at all-perhaps pre-emptive. Later, Pro makes a point about a "contradiction" that I don"t particularly understand, which Con refutes, but honestly, there is no offense here. Pro/Con needs to show why *I* should or shouldn"t think the Regan was the best, not the polls. I need to know WHY the "experts" or population thought the way they did. Near the end, Con says that polls are biased. I sympathize, but Con fails to show why they are biased or why his polls are better (who are these experts?). I"ll take it into consideration, but it"s kind of a moot point.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Part 2
Next, Con talks about how he aids people who will eventually become "terrorists." However, in the same breath, he says that Regan cannot be blamed. I think this probably was unwise, since he likely could be blamed. Con makes a point about Iranian missiles that he doesn"t crystalize or bring up again. I would have liked to have learned more about that, and the Nicaraguan Contra fighters. Pro said they were needed to fight the communists. Con does not contest this, so I have no choice but to flow it through. However, Pro does not give any reason why ending the Soviet Union is a good thing. I know it is, Pro, but you need to tell me why. Con eventually says that it caused terrorism today, but by his own admission there was no way of knowing it. Pro also didn"t say HOW it impacted terrorism today. Did it cause 9/11? Con needs to make those kinds of impact points. I actually think that Regan SHOULD have known it, but Con gave me no arguments for me to think so.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
doctorcsssTBRTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Close debate. Both sides had sources used, but both sides' sources could have been more scholarly/less biased.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
doctorcsssTBRTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
doctorcsssTBRTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.