The Instigator
DavidMancke
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
partylike999
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The 44th US President has done a better job than the 17th President

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 2 votes the winner is...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 87451
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

DavidMancke

Pro

There's a frequent claim that the sitting US President is the worst in history. I submit that this contention is in complete contrast with the actual historical record.

Celebrated US historians have long contended that not only was Andrew Johnson the worst President in US history, but that the bar for "worst ever" was set so high that no future executive could be worse.

Simply put, if you are of the persuasion that the current US President is actually the "worst ever" and care to bring that claim to bear against someone with some muster; this is the opportunity you've been waiting for.

Round 1: acceptance

No new arguments in final round, new examples are okay, and if a new argument was made in the prior round, (round three) the final round can be used to answer that argument; "PM Privilege"
partylike999

Con

In reality, i think he is better, but i'll have to be against according to you.
Obama created Obamacare, which is very criticized. He is annoying when he says "Yes we can!"

Obama is not the most Idiotic idiot ever, f*ck Obama!
Debate Round No. 1
DavidMancke

Pro

Historians have long speculated that both Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's and Abraham Lincoln in the 1860's were racist, at least by our standard today. That may sadly be true. That would also mean these two Presidents saw, in spite of themselves, the need for equality in their day. And they acted and embraced the consequences of forcing egalitarianism through the law. And it means they did so despite themselves; by being better than themselves, whatever degree of personal bigotry.

In 1858, then congressman Abraham Lincoln gave his famous, "half slave and half free," speech in Springfield Illinois, where twenty years earlier he had contended that, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be the author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must either live through all time, or die by suicide."

On April 14th 1965 Abraham Lincoln, reelected President of the United States after serendipitous turns in the Civil War, faced the great challenge of reincorporating the South, and unifying an array of factions. That night he was assassinated.

The next day Vice President Andrew Johnson, a war Democrat and formally the Union's military governor of Tennessee, ascended to the Presidency. In 1864 he had joined Abraham Lincoln's long-shot bid, providing a southern Union Democrat on the "National Union" ticket. He was the first Vice President to ever ascend from an assassination, and the only ever during a civil war.

He would never rise to the example Lincoln had set. In fact he would contravene his President's policy and seek to further entrench racism.

In a twist of irony Andrew Johnson would bring a newly and at long last restored nation to a new and unexpected threshold of infighting, discord, vitriol and nearly to legal collapse all just in under four years, and for reasons no history could ever vindicate.

In the interest of fairness I've presented a few sort of, "Who's in Grant's Tomb," examples, to provide a robust source on the events and chronology of the Johnson Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This is all very lengthy, but suffice to say Andrew Johnson fought against egalitarianism and had no concept of what we take for granted norms and civil liberties today. What's even worse, his divisive bureaucratic attempts to destroy and reduce the power of Freedmen lead him into bitter and entirely political struggles. "This is a nation for white men, and by God, as long as I am President it will be a government for white men." He famously said.

He resisted the 14th amendment, supported antebellum government and finally was impeached in reasonable suspicion for violation of the Tenure of Office Act. He narrowly escaped conviction by one vote. Ever since then, the evidence has compounded that he bought votes to avoid it, politically and with cash.

Andrew Johnson epitomized the worst of his times politics, the lowest threshold of American Egalitarianism, and a lust for doomed political confrontation to advance his own political career. He did so when our nation has never been weaker. Our elected President had died, and he spun the situation to try and entrench racism and nearly destroyed our restored government. And big part was because he was racist. Others had and since have set better examples, despite themselves, perhaps, like some say of Lincoln in the 1860's, and Lyndon Johnson in 1960's

Suffice to say despite any weakens Barack Obama has been accused of, that list can't outstrip the violation and vitriol of Andrew Johnson.

In comparison with our current President, my esteemed opponent, (I said it at least once), has complained of the Affordable Care Act and the slogan from the 2008 campaign. One is a national healthcare bill, to which my opponent never offered an actual objection. The other is a slogan that is not inherently negative. It bears mentioning my opponent merely complained of the slogan being annoying. This is all outweighed by the harm of advancing and entrenching racism, and threatening our government during reconstruction with the south right after Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated in 1866 and at the end of the Civil War.

If my opponent would like to offer unique advantages or disadvantages of the Obama era for comparison with unique advantages or disadvantages from the Johnson era of the 1860's for a kind of "which is better/worse" comparison I will certainly respond. To be fair, such a comparison would be pretty brutal for the negative (con).

IN considering this it bears mentioning that one of the reasons for offering the topic was to provide perspective on a frequented claim that is humbug, regarding Obama's overall place in history by any meaningful measure. The hard right has become so extreme, some elements cannot see reason when it's in ink, let alone your calendar. Recalcitrance has come to epitomize the far right, and my opponent has thus far played to that fiddle: the most incendiary scream about our culture and the economy without the basic wherewithal to evaluated our currents President's impact on either, especially within the lens of history. We would offer to educated them, but would probably be turned down.

Abraham Lincoln is oft cited seeking to be on the side of right whatever his predilections might be, and claiming the virtues of freedom and equality should carry any argument.

After Lincoln's death and with the nation still wounded, Andrew Johnson tried to compare himself to Jesus Christ in a campaign to advocate and entrench what was at the time already rejected institutional racism.

Barack Obama worked with a gridlocked congress to pass a healthcare bill that some Americans find dissatisfactory, and he had a campaign slogan.

There is simply no comparison.

I leave it to my opponent to pick up the more serious tone I have tried to offer. Who knows, perhaps they will have something to offer to the current day, or historical analysis of this topic.

Thanks for reading, and for your vote; Vote Aff!
partylike999

Con

It Is Crazy to say this, but i see african in his eyes. andrew johnson might be bad but obama is african

(let the racist boos begin)
Debate Round No. 2
DavidMancke

Pro

Negative fails to provide argument, meet any burdens and provides racists advocacy. Vote Affirmative!
partylike999

Con

Please Vote Con.

I Bet 0% is though
Debate Round No. 3
DavidMancke

Pro

Again, no argument offered or burdens met by negative. My opponent is right to doubt they will get a ballot. They have provided nothing to earn your vote.

Affirmative has offered argument in favor of the resolution, and did not advocate racism like the negative did.

Vote Aff!
partylike999

Con

Say Con For This Statement. I Really Feel Bad For Being The Con, I In Reality Am Going For Pro. What The Heck Have I Gotten Into?
But I Feel Like Andrew Johnson<<<<<Report this Argument
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
*William Henry Seward
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Correct, your initial acceptance implied that you were confused about who is supposed to be resolutional.

You may want to consider reading up on the Johnson and those first few years of reconstruction. You may also want to consider learning about Edwin Stanton, Henry Seward and the 14th amendment.
Posted by partylike999 1 year ago
partylike999
why. i did read it. i am saying that obama is the worst
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I was really hoping that someone better (still with the same "plank in their own eye") would have taken this topic. Once this is done I will offer again with more restrictions.

My case will be up later this evening.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
"The contender misread the resolution (according to the acceptance portion/round 1) so let me restate the resolution.

Resolved: The 44th US President has done a better job than the 17th [US] President.

I support the resolution as the "Pro", claiming the Barack Obama has done a better job than Andrew Johnson did in 1865-1869
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Probably on Wikipedia trying to figure out who Andrew Johnson even was. Anyone that knows anything about the topic and debate would challenge the resolution outright.

Nevertheless, the blind hatred and vitriol toward our current president has people frothing at the mouth, and they jump on the opportunity to shout it at everyone without even considering what the imports might be.

I said as much in the outset, and even then, once I opened it up it took mere moments for someone to try and skateboard behind a bus.

Stay tuned America, this will be far better than anything you will see on Daniel Tosh once I'm done.
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
BackCommander
I'm very excited to see who Con will be.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
DavidManckepartylike999Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided bad conduct by cursing in round 1.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DavidManckepartylike999Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con displayed poor conduct by cursing in round one.