The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
MrMarkP37
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

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 9 votes the winner is...
MrMarkP37
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,364 times Debate No: 8778
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (9)

 

wjmelements

Con

http://www.princeton.edu...

King Franklin I, also known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not a good monarch. Between the New Deal, treatment of Japanese Americans, and being generally unconstitutional, King Franklin I can not be called a great ruler.

great- wonderful; first-rate; very good http://dictionary.reference.com...

I am CON, and will allow PRO to present his/her case first.
MrMarkP37

Pro

"King Franklin I, also known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not a good monarch."

Franklin Roosevelt was neither a king nor a monarch. As such it cannot be positively stated whether or not he would have been a good monarch. For instance, I have never played the sport of frisbee golf, therefore it cannot be stated whether or not I'm a good frisbee golfer because I have never been one. Franklin Roosevelt was never a king nor a monarch so it cannot be stated whether he was good or bad at these things.

Arguments that Franklin Roosevelt was a good President:

1. He saw the country through the greatest financial and pesonal crisis it has ever faced: The Great Depression.
a. Unemployment rates fell every year (except 1938) that Roosevelt was President. http://www.huppi.com...
As this link shows, when Roosevelt took office unemployment was at 24.9 percent.
With the exception of 1938, this number fell every year of his tenure in office.
b. In 1936 alone GPD rose under Roosevelt's leadership by 14.1 percent and unemployment fell to 16.9 percent.
c.Roosevelt was faced with an unprecidented crisis and he followed unprecidented measures to deal with it. In doing so he was following the example left by Abraham Lincoln (a devoted lover of the Constitution) in taking extreme measures to deal with an extreme problem.
2. He lead the country during one of the most important and bloody struggles this country has ever faced: World War II.
World War II was a dangerous undertaking and Roosevelt's leadership during the majority of the war proved to be invaluable to the cause of the allies.
He initiated the lend-lease program, which kept American lives save and yet helped provide aid for a much beleagured Britian. When the United States did enter the war he selected Dwight Eisenhower over George Patton to be the supreme allied commander. This appointment was genius as Eisenhower was the perfect man to lead the allied forces. Roosevelt was able to effectively deal with Churchhill and Stalin in creating a coalition that was able to stop the Nazi threat.
3. He was reelected by wide margins: http://www.infoplease.com...

One of the great things about living in this country is that we are able to voice our opinions both in the public media and at the ballot box. This is one of the things that make Presidents and Monarchs different. Franklin Roosevelt ran for President four times and four times he received both the most electoral votes and the most popular votes.
As you can see from the link Roosevelt was never really in danger of losing any election:
32: 472 to 59
36:523 to 8
40: 449 to 82
44: 432 to 99

A vast majority of the people of this country obviously liked what Roosevelt was doing. Which makes sense, given the fact that he pulled the country out of an economic disaster and lead this country in defeat of the Nazis.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First of all, King Franklin the First was a monarch and a king.
monarch- a sole and absolute ruler of a state or nation http://dictionary.reference.com...

King Franklin I ruled with absolute power (there were absolutely no checks on his power); therefore, he was a monarch.

king- a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. http://dictionary.reference.com...

King Franklin I was a male monarch who held that position until he died, was initially elected partly due to Theodore Roosevelt, a hereditary family member, and held chief authority over the people. So, he was a king.

And, if he is not a king, then the resolution is obviously negated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's see everything that FDR did that a good ruler would not do.

-He took the dollar off of the gold standard in 1933. http://www.huppi.com...

-He established the unconstitutional National Recovery Administration in 1933. It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 1935. http://www.huppi.com...

-He increased the top marginal income tax rate to 79 percent in 1936. It had been 25 percent 5 years earlier. By 1945, the top marginal income tax rate would be 91 percent. http://www.huppi.com...

-He established the unconstitutional Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 1936. http://www.huppi.com...

-He established the unconstitutional National Labour Relations Board in 1935. It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 1937. http://www.huppi.com...

-He tripled the national debt from 40% of the GNP to 120% of the GNP during his presidency. http://en.wikipedia.org...

-Japanese-Americans were removed from their homes into internment camps during WWII. http://www.mahalo.com...

-He increased the corporate income tax to 95 percent. http://www.americandaily.com...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IN RESPONSE TO MY OPPONENT'S CASE
1. King Roosevelt's policies actually slowed economic recovery. Rather than ending the depression in 1936, pro-labour and anti-competition laws dragged the depression on until 1943, when the draft finally brought unemployment down below the depression level. http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
"Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943." http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

"Yet, despite these extraordinary achievements, Roosevelt's initiatives did not, in the end, lift the country out of the Great Depression. At no time in the first eight years of the New Deal did unemployment drop below 15 percent. At no time did economic activity reach levels comparable to those of a decade earlier; and, while there were periods when the economy seemed to be recovering, none of them lasted very long. And so this bold, active, and creative moment in our history proved to be a failure at its central task." http://www.tnr.com...

Says Jim Powell, quoted in American Daily:
"After Americans had suffered through a catastrophic contraction for three years (1929-1933), FDR supported policies like the National industrial Recovery Act that promoted further contraction. His executive orders helped enforce higher consumer prices when millions of Americans were unemployed and needed bargains. FDR approved the destruction of food when people were hungry. FDR signed into law higher taxes for everybody, so consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money with which to hire people-during the worst depression in American history. New Deal labor laws empowered the most racist unions to exclude blacks and had the effect of making it illegal for many employers to hire blacks." http://www.americandaily.com...

2. It is well-known that King Franklin had intelligence regarding the potential Pearl Harbor attacks but refused to do anything about it so that he could convince America to go to war. (See timeline: http://www.geocities.com...) (Other sources: http://whatreallyhappened.com... http://www.apfn.org... http://www.fff.org...)

Besides that, he handled World War II rather well. However, during this time the national debt tripled in relation to the GNP. During the whole of his presidency, the debt increased by over 1000 percent. http://www.ahherald.com...

"World War II added another digit to the nation's debt, which leaped from $43 billion to $259 billion from 1940 to 1945." http://www.thefreemanonline.org...

So, while FDR handled the war well, he created a massive public debt that would forever be a burden on his country.

3. Being popular does not make a president "wonderful", "first-rate", or "very good".
For example, Adolf Hitler had over twice as many votes as his runner-up in the 1933 elections (http://www.gonschior.de...), while FDR had only 7 million votes (less than 20%) more than his runner-up in 1932 (http://uselectionatlas.org...).

So, if the ability to win an election by a large margin qualifies one to be great, then Hitler is 13 times greater than King Franklin I.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, let us review:

-King Franklin I had many unconstitutional policies.
-He almost quadrupled the top marginal income tax rate.
-He increased the national debt by over 1000% during his presidency.
-He took the dollar off of the gold standard.
-He increased the corporate income tax to 95%.
-He lengthened the Great Depression 7 years.
-He sent thousands of Japanese-Americans to internment camps.

These types of things do not make a ruler great. The resolution is negated.
MrMarkP37

Pro

"And, if he is not a king, then the resolution is obviously negated."

Great. So my opponent has admitted that all I must prove his whether or not Franklin Roosevelt was a King.

As I previously stated, and cited a reference for, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the office of President four times. Compare this to how many times any king has come up for election or re-election. That number is 0.
Future Kings are known from their time of birth, as it is family lineage and not elections that crown a king. For instance, we all know that at one point Prince William (if he lives long enough) will become King of England. However, despite a distant family connection, no one knew with certainty that Franklin Roosevelt would become the "king" of America.
Now to my final point, let me reference something from the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..." http://www.archives.gov...
If you read the entire text of the Constitution you will see that it makes no reference to a "king" having any part in the government. Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an office in the United States, the United States does not have a king, therefore Franklin Roosevelt could not have been a king. Resolution negated.

However, I will address some of your other points.
The National Recovery Adminstration was allowed to be created by the passing of the National Recovery Act, an act passed by the congress of the United States in 1933. Franklin Roosevelt was not a member of congress, therefore (as per the previously cited Constitution) he could not have enacted this law, he simply signed it into law.
The same is true of the other adminstrations you mentioned.
You mentioned that some of these administrations were ruled unConstitutional, but how is that possible if Franklin Roosevelt had absolute power with no checks? Since the supreme court checked his power as President he could not have been a king with absolute power.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

"Resolution negated."

I win. Perhaps my opponent has forgotten that he is PRO. I will now allow my opponent to drop this argument, so that hopefully this can only be a debate about whether or not King Franklin I was a great ruler.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opponent contends that because FDR was not in congress to pass a law; therefore, he was not unconstitutional. However, he signed these bills into law, proposed them, campaigned on them, and rammed them through congress. It is absurd to say that he is not in the least responsible for them.

My opponent concedes that FDR did not follow the constitution. My opponent also concedes that the New Deal did not work, that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, and that overall he was a bad ruler. The only thing that he contended was that FDR was a king.

Because FDR had solemnly swore to uphold the constitution (see video) and then defied it, he has committed perjury. Good rulers do not commit perjury.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opponent claims that kings never have checks on their power. This is absurd, as constitutional monarchies exist, such as Canada http://www.cbc.ca..., and many Kings had limited power. For example, King George of Britain had an elected Parliament that had legislative power http://www.7cs.com....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will now stop and let my opponent speak.
MrMarkP37

Pro

I may be mistaken, but I believe as the instigator you have the burden of proof. That being the case if Franklin Roosevelt was not a king then you cannot disprove the thesis. Therefore I win.
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has dropped all of his arguments and conceded all of mine. This is rather unfortunate, as I was hoping to debate whether or not he was a good ruler.

If there was no ruler of the United States named King Roosevelt the First, then he could not have been a great ruler. Therefore, the resolution is negated.

One has to exist in order to to be "wonderful", "first-rate", or "very good".

In order to be a great ruler of the United States, one must actually be a ruler of the United States.

Good try, though.

My opponent conceded that the resolution is negated, dropped all my arguments, dropped all of his arguments, and then argued on fallacy.
VOTE CON.
MrMarkP37

Pro

As I stated earier you have the burden of proof, meaning that you must prove the thesis that you created to be false. Since Franklin Roosevelt was not a king you cannot do that, meaning I win.

Also, if you wanted to have a reasonable debate about the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (something I would have enjoyed) you should not have chosen to title him King Franklin the First and instead referred to him by his actual name, no matter what your opinion of the actual person was.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Voting is public now. The guy that dropped 7 on me was tribefan.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
But not of a block or of multiple accounts. Just vote abuse.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
: Someone just dropped 7 points on me

...bombing.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
How did PRO win this?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Someone just dropped 7 points on me.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"How does FDR not being a king affirm the resolution?"
It doesn't, which is why CON gets my vote.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Aah... I mixed up Pro and Con. (Sorry)

Arguments - Con
Sources - Con
Everything else Tied
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
How does FDR not being a king affirm the resolution?
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Or, perhaps the two of you are just in the same high school class and just always vote for each other."
---Haha, yeah, this seems to be a recurring theme from the kids in Spring, Texas.

RFD:
B/A - Tied/Pro
Conduct - Tied
S&G - Tied
Arguments - Pro
(FDR was not a King)
Sources - Con
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"You cannot disprove the statement if the statement is false."

A false statement has been disproved. That's what makes it "false".

Comparison: "Hitler was a great ruler of Britain" can be disproven by saying that Hitler was never a ruler of Britain in the first place.

And again, you should have dropped this point so the debate could focus around FDR, and not semantics. Why you chose the semantics route, I have no idea.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Levin 7 years ago
Levin
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60