The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
qwarkinator
Con (against)
Losing
39 Points

There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,190 times Debate No: 2503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (26)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

The proposition is pretty clear, I have yet to see any real evidence that Bush lied, except maybe a few people claiming he did with no evidence.
qwarkinator

Con

You stated that Bush never lied to get us into Iraq. My first point is a lie is anything that is meant to mislead, it does not have to be a complete contradiction. Therefore when Bush ignores the fact that oil could be a possible cause for going into Iraq he is misleading American citizens and lying to them. By not addressing the issue of oil he lets the ordinary American draw their own conclusions which can be misleading depending on the conclusions.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Pro

Well, I feel as if I need to define 'Lie' more broadly. PhD Aldert Vrij, prominent professor on Lies and lie detection defines a lie as "A successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue"

Therefore, Bush would have to KNOW the information he gave was inaccurate, and be intentionally trying to deceive the American people in order to get into Iraq. While the evidence may have showed to be less than credible post hoc, that does not mean it did not appear to be credible at the time. Many congresspersons, including Hillary Clinton found the evidence very credible before turning around and calling Bush a liar- while seeing the same evidence and using the same rhetoric. While you might believe that Oil is a cause for the war, there is no evidence that

1. Oil was in fact the cause for war.

2. Bush's intentions were for 'oil' in going for war.

Bush can not possibly address every issue, and failing to address issues that might be criticized in the future is unrealistic. If I were to buy a bottle of Liquor (assuming I were over the age of 21) for a party I was having, and somebody asked me what the reason was for buying that bottle- I could honestly say that I bought it for a party. I would still be honest, even if I omitted "Although, perhaps, you might wrongfully believe that I will use this alcohol to take advantage of a woman I met last night, or that I might try to give this alcohol to a minor for profit, or [list any other conclusion you might possibly draw from this]. I can still be honest without 'addressing' every possible cause you might think it may be.
qwarkinator

Con

I am not arguing that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and then sent us to war. I agree with you that there is no significant proof of that fact. I am arguing that Bush had other motives for going into Iraq (at the beginning of the war) and by ignoring them he deceived the American public.

My next point is that I should not have just said ignoring oil could be a possible cause of the war; I should have made a broader statement. Ignoring the possible economic gain and stability we could achieve from invading Iraq would be deceitful.

"Bush can not possibly address every issue, and failing to address issues that might be criticized in the future is unrealistic."

Now we arrive at the statement that you made. I am not asking Bush to address every issue that would be wild goose chase and quite ridiculous. However, many US wars have been criticized because they were fought in the name of economic growth and stability. To put this in context of your example it would be as if someone who was previously suspected of purchasing alcohol for minors went to the liquor store and purchased liquor. I would except that man to defend his actions and explain exactly were that alcohol was going and provide proof after that party that the alcohol arrived at its intended destination.

Therefore I believe my previous statement holds true. By ignoring the possible economic gain and stability we could achieve from invading Iraq the president is misleading the American public.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Pro

Failing to mention what you might speculate is absolutely NOT proof of lying. Bush's only duty was to tell the truth as he saw it, not to rebute every possible argument. As defined earlier, a lie is A successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue.

Failing to give information that might be SPECULATED UPON later would not fall into this definition of a lie, which remained unobjected by you.
qwarkinator

Con

The best way to explain my argument is through an example. Imagine you are sitting in courtroom on a jury. An accused suspect is currently on the stand. The prosecution is questioning him. This man is accused of burglary. This is not the first time he has been accused of burglary. In the past he has been convicted for this crime. He has also been known to lie in the past to avoid conviction. The prosecution asks him were he was the night of the burglary. He explains that he was at his house and nowhere near the site of the burglary. Then the prosecution asks him to tell the jury why he is not lying this time. The man pleads the Fifth Amendment. Would you assume that he is guilty?

Imagine President Bush was the suspect, the burglary was fighting war in the name of economic gain and/or stability and pleading the Fifth Amendment was literally what the President did. Would you assume that he is guilty?

You must assume one of two things the suspect (President Bush) is either incompetent of standing trial or he is covering something up and in turn misleading the jury.

You must assume the second because the President is not mentally disturbed and can clearly think. If he is trying to cover something up, he is misleading the public and must be lying.

"Failing to give information that might be SPECULATED UPON later"

This argument falls apart when you say information that might be speculated upon later. When someone is previously suspected of going to war in the name of economic gain and/or stability this is not something that might be speculated upon later. There were many presidents prior to Bush that were guilty of this crime.

Now you might say that just because previous presidents did this does not mean President Bush should be suspected of the same crime. This is also not true. If a new member of a gang tries to buy liquor and other members of this gang have purchased other liquor and sold it to minors would it not be fair to ask that this new gang member who has not yet been convicted of that crime, to what location that liquor was going. Just as the American public should know we are not going to war for economic gain and/or stability prior to the war. If this gang member does not respond to question you must assume that he is trying to cover something up and trying to mislead you.

Therefore the President deceived the American Public when entering the war in Iraq.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Mindjob is just a left wing hack

All liberals lie about everything to distort facts and make the republicans and US the bad guys

Everything they have tried to do to smear lie and distort the record of this administration has failed except with the medias ability to fool the average person who is not well read

All the hack liars will be shown what they are through the lens of history - I will watch with interest to see them fall
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Fortunately we have video that will prove you wrong. A search term on the most popular video site of "wmd lies" will bring up a video that catches many in Bush's administration stating that they knew, with certainty, where the WMDs were. When you say you know something with certainty, and then it turns out that you were wrong, you have lied.
Posted by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
fine just post it when your ready
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Something about maximizing liberty?

I have a TON of stuff to do in the next day or two so I miht not be able to post in in right away.
Posted by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
fair enough i include 5 rounds. What would you like instead of the hard working man.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Hard working man is a set up topic. Its very easy to argue, even from a capitalistic standpoint that socialism might be profitable for the 'working man'. I like more time to develop the argument than three rounds, with that I only have one argument in the middle, one closing, and one opening. I prefer at least two 'middle' arguments.
Posted by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
I posted the debate if you wish to debate me if you do not i will delete it.
Posted by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
May i ask why more than four rounds? My purposed question might be capitalism or socialism, which benefits the hard working man more? Let me know your comments. I am sure you will.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
If I had the time and didn't just prove his lying in my last comments, thus making the debate pointless, I probably would start one up. But because of this, I'll leave the debate to others.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
If you can come up with a good proposition that sounds alright to me.

Make it 4 or more rounds and we might have a deal.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by reagan_views 9 years ago
reagan_views
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
DucoNihilumqwarkinatorTied
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