The Instigator
jazzyfizzle
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
me_a
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

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: 3/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,569 times Debate No: 3445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (7)

 

jazzyfizzle

Pro

i believe that once bush leaves office that is many things will be reveled..i say that the many things that america all want to know the answer to will come out in the open..i reason why many of our faithful americans went over to iraq and died..everyone in america thought the war would only last about 6 month's to a year. but look how many it went on...why gas has gone up to about 3.24 in the last year. why world new and other resource say that by the way economy is gone, if u don't have lot of money saved up, you are 2 pay checks away from being out on the streets....and there no reason for that...why on almost every loan that has went out is know about more then half interest rate...and many more things that no one know the answer to....it will all be out when he leaves office
me_a

Con

As much as I despise our current administration, I fail to believe that all of America's problems will simply disappear when President Bush finally departs from the oval office. Depending on who is the next president, America may or may not be on the road to correction. Our future leader is going to face countless challenges to restore the country. Gas prices have skyrocketed, we're fighting an seemingly endless war, foreign relations are nearing the point of hopelessness, we're experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and to top it all off, we're openly violating the Geneva Convention (http://baltimorechronicle.com...). It certainly is apparent as to why there is such an Anti-Bush stigma circulating around the nation. However, his looming end does not spell salvation for the American people. Though it would be nice to assume a simple solution, we must be practical. When Bush leaves Washington, he will not be able to do as much harm, but we can not look to his absence for ultimate deliverance. Restoring America's former glory will be a challenge, and should be treated as such.
Debate Round No. 1
jazzyfizzle

Pro

i agree..but i can almost sure u that when bush leaves not all but some of the many problems have will go away...and i can a sure you that bush his self is the reason why things are the way they are..like the fact that we were told that our troops would be home a long time ago...but the fact that their not says lot about our president and how much he really cares and i think that once bush leaves office their will be more hard times coming across america bush has mad our economy the pits..to the point were half the children in Pennsylvania don't have health insurance...so the problems that we face today is because of bush..and their will be much more when he leaves office.
me_a

Con

I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to say. Bush is the only reason the country is the way it is today? Not a single other person holds even the slightest responsibility? Not our congressmen and women that voted to start the war. Not Dick Cheney who, in between pheasant safaris, was determined at all costs to invade Iraq. Not the die-hard Bush supporters that comprise his final percentage points. Not the countless members of the Bush administration that backed, perhaps even proposed, his political atrocities. Not even his speech writers.

That's utter ridiculousness. President Bush is simply a figure head- and a poor one at that. The American people can not logically blame all of our issues on a single representative. The American political system is governed by checks and balances. The legislative checks the executive, the judicial checks the legislative, the executive vacations in Texas, then realizes he's being questioned and returns to Washington to confer with his advisers. Any negative affect that President Bush has had on the country is not only his fault, it is the fault of the entire government for letting it get through.

And now my opponent is saying that America will have more problems when Bush leaves; however, their entire opening argument was based on the opinion that every single problem would vanish when Bush left office.

The Bush administration is the worst in American history. Never before has a president hindered the country to this extent in every prominent and even rather elusive foreign and domestic issue. However, this does not mean that America's problems rest entirely on Bush's shoulders, nor does it mean that they will disappear when Bush leaves office.

My opponent is only bringing up examples of what the Bush administration has caused throughout its nearly eight year reign. They have not provided any examples of how it is only Bush's fault, or how all of America's problems will magically vanish.

The following links provide support for my own arguments.
Cheney's role in the invasion of Iraq: http://archive.newsmax.com...
Issues facing the next president:
http://archive.newsmax.com...
And there's certainly more if you do a little googling.
Debate Round No. 2
jazzyfizzle

Pro

MY OPPONENT SAY THAT BUSH IS NOT TOTTALLY TO BLAME.....BUT BUSH HAS MORE POWER.SO EVEN IF THEY VOTED FOR THE WAR...I BELIVE THAT EVEN IF THEY GOVERMENT WANTED SOMETHING TO HAPPEN...THEN OUR 'O SO LOYAL PRESIDENT WOULD VOTE AGAINT IT'.SO YOU REALLY HAVE NO ARGUMENT..THEY ONLY UP STANDING ARGUMENT IS THAT BUSH IS NOT RESONABILE FOR TROOPS GOING TO IRAQ.......JUST ASK THE MANY MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIDED.....CANT RIGHT...AND AFTER ABOUT A YEAR WHEN HE SEEN THAT NO REAL RESULTS WAS GOING THOUGH THEN HE SHOULD HAVE PULLED OUR TROOPS OUT....SO THAT SHOWS YOU HOW MUCH HE REALLY CARES......
me_a

Con

My opponent said that Bush has more power. I'm not entirely sure who my opponent believes he has more power over. A lofty squirrel? The U.S. Congress? In theory, the president is the most powerful member of the United States government. They make the final decisions, hence Bush's self-imposed nickname of "the decider." However, as I mentioned before, their actions are checked by other branches of government as well as international law.

My opponent mentioned in a previous argument that Iraq was entirely Bush's fault; however, they are now saying it was not. If they agree with me in this respect, logic would reason they would agree with me in all others, as the reasoning is identical.
The aforementioned reasoning is as follows:
Bush is not the only representative active in the United States government, he is not the only person making decisions or proposing policies. In fact, the majority of his ideas are proposed by his cabinet and other advisers. Therefore, America's faults can not be blamed on a single figure head of an administration.

Apparently my opponent would rather argue whether or not the Iraq war is appropriate rather then their original statement. My opponents original statement was (paraphrased of course) that upon Bush's departure, all of America's problems would be solved and our questions answered. My opponent agreed with me in their second argument that America's problems would not go away and that the future president faced copious challenges.

My opponent posed questions pertaining to the economy and the war in their opening argument. The answers to those questions have not been secreted away in government files. The reason we are still in Iraq is because of oil. The reason gas is over three dollars a gallon is because of inflation and the fact that oil is over $100 per barrel. There are numerous reasons why the economy is "tanking," as my opponent so eloquently put it. One major reason is that before the 2004 election, the Republican-dominated congress gave businesses, small and large, subsidies to buy new vehicles. Business owners across the country strolled into their local dealership sporting their government check and purchased new vehicles. Though this may seem like an economic boost, it in fact only caused fewer companies to purchase cars that next year and the year after that. This hurt the automotive industry and therefore the American economy. This was a decision and imposition of Congress, not Bush. Unless someone is seeking classified military information, the answers they want are already available.

My opponent has still failed to support their arguments, not only with evidence, but with any sort of explanation at all. Their claims have become entirely non-topical. Telling me to converse with deceased American soldiers is not only inappropriate, but irrelevant to the realms of this debate.

President Bush is not responsible for every single fault in America. Though he has the power to "approve" or to "veto," he also has the possibility of being denied by Congress. The House of Representatives must approve policy, they must approve the initiation of military action. For this reason, along with the numerous aforementioned ones, Bush's departure will not save the American populous. The questions originally posed my opponent will not be answered, because they already have been. The American people, those who read the news at least, know why the economy is declining, they know why we're in Iraq, and they know that America will face hardships with or without President Bush in office.

For these reasons, along with the lack of my opponents evidence, topicality, and logic, I can see no other option than a vote in negation of the proposed argument.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
then why are you on this site? you sure think like a toddler.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
"You need to see a doctor. How can you possibly even conceive that to be true?"

What I mean is that our oil supply doesn't go down by not drilling in ANWAR. It doesn't effect it.

"EXACTLY MY POINT! Thank you for your help. Are you happy with the prices we're at? I didnt think so. When supply goes up, demand goes down. If you cant understand this, I pity you."

You never said: "Liberals cause oil prices to stay where they are now". You said: "Liberal's make oil prices high". So, yes, if by "causing oil prices to rise" you actually meant that liberals "caused oil prices to stay the same", than yes. The main group to blame is not politicians, but rather the oil companies themselves.

"Unlike you thick-headed libs, my political philosophy isn't mired in irrational and ideaological nonsense. I can actually come to a conclusion using common sense and a rational thought process."

I'll paraphrase what you said: "Blah blah blah *bad insult*, blah blah blah *liberal joke*. Blah blah blah, I'm so right, I don't need proof, blah blah blah *liberal joke."

Close enough? You're completely ridiculous to think you don't need evidence for a claim such as "liberals cause high oil prices". Additionally, you are an intense waste of time with your ignorant insults. You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you in the a**. I'm asuming you're too lazy to go get evidence, so lets just quit wasting time and agree to disagree. You're way of "Arguing" is effectually just making petty insults as real debaters, while making baseless claims. How about you stop being childish and you prove me wrong. Note the "prove" word in there. It's an important one.

You are precisely why they shouldn't let children on the site.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
"Additionally, us not drilling in ANWAR doesn't exactly limit our oil supply."

You need to see a doctor. How can you possibly even conceive that to be true? I'll give you a kiddie analogy since you need to one understand this:

It's easter time and the little kiddies are searching for easter eggs! The parents (aka libs in the senate) have scattered eggs around the yard, but for some reason, they left hundreds and hundreds of eggs (oil in ANWAR) in a safe inside the house. These cruel parents are robbing kids of the eggs (oil) they want to be happy (aka relieved from gas prices).

"It keeps it at the exact same price we're at."

EXACTLY MY POINT! Thank you for your help. Are you happy with the prices we're at? I didnt think so. When supply goes up, demand goes down. If you cant understand this, I pity you.

"Anyway, you want to make a statement like "liberals make oil expensive"? Then get an author. Seriously. This is awful. I've said it countless times. Get some evidence."

Unlike you thick-headed libs, my political philosophy isn't mired in irrational and ideaological nonsense. I can actually come to a conclusion using common sense and a rational thought process. This isn't a scientific expirement with data and evidence. It is called LOGIC, something you can never obtain with your ignorant liberalism.

Maybe I should become an author, because my message will actually resinate with normal, clear thinking Americans. And by the way, you should read the book "How to talk to a Liberal" to get a feeling of where I'm coming from when I try to educate you.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
"normally it takes libs a few times to fully comprehend coherent logic"

You make a case, cases need evidence. Additionally, us not drilling in ANWAR doesn't exactly limit our oil supply. It keeps it at the exact same price we're at. Anyway, you want to make a statement like "liberals make oil expensive"? Then get an author. Seriously. This is awful. I've said it countless times. Get some evidence.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
I guess you do need a tutor.

I never knew supply and demand was a biased right-wing idea.

I'll post my reply again, because normally it takes libs a few times to fully comprehend coherent logic:

Here's an economic lesson. Take some notes. It's called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. When supply goes up, demand goes down (aka prices go down). When liberals democrats in the Senate voted against drilling in ANWAR, it a) it made us rely of foreign oil more, SOMETHING WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM and b) it limits our supply drastically (there are 10.3 BILLION barrels of oil in ANWAR). I just dont understand how you cant comprehend this. If we were to drill in ANWAR, supply would go up, transportation of oil would be way less expensive, and oil prices would decrease. It's a basic principle of supply and demand. But thanks to the brilliant libs in the Senate, we have not been able to drill in ANWAR and thus are even further strained economically on oil prices. There are several factors that have caused oil prices, my point is that libs are not helping the situation at all and because of the blockade against drilling in ANWAR, and thus the libs in the senate have caused oil prices. If you cant understand this simple supply and demand theory, then you should get a tutor.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
"Blah blah blah I can't find any actual proof."

That's effectually what you said.

Find. Some. Evidence.

Then we'll talk. I don't ever care remotely about your biased logic. If you want to convince me, get some evidence. Seriously, how many times do I have to say it? Just because something makes sense in your demented little head, doesn't mean it actually makes sense in the real world. Try not to whine too much.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
Here's an economic lesson. Take some notes. It's called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. When supply goes up, demand goes down (aka prices go down). When liberals democrats in the Senate voted against drilling in ANWAR, it a) it made us rely of foreign oil more, SOMETHING WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM and b) it limits our supply drastically (there are 10.3 BILLION barrels of oil in ANWAR). I just dont understand how you cant comprehend this. If we were to drill in ANWAR, supply would go up, transportation of oil would be way less expensive, and oil prices would decrease. It's a basic principle of supply and demand. But thanks to the brilliant libs in the Senate, we have not been able to drill in ANWAR and thus are even further strained economically on oil prices. There are several factors that have caused oil prices, my point is that libs are not helping the situation at all and because of the blockade against drilling in ANWAR, and thus the libs in the senate have caused oil prices. If you cant understand this simple supply and demand theory, then you should get a tutor.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
oh, ad the reason don't believe you (other than your ridiculous bias) is that your winning percentage is 10%. Added, you lost to dairygirl4u2c.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
See, the problem is, you're lazy. You expect me to do research on something, when its your JOB to prove it. Get something that actually says liberals cause high oil prices. You extrapolate that because liberals voted against ANWAR, they cause high prices? There are tons of other factors, consider them.

Racism isn't the most accurate term. But the idea is, you think your group is intrinsically better than liberals. Thats not right.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
did I say "all liberals cause high oil prices?" The dumb libs in the senate, WHO YOU OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT, voted against drilling in anwar. Is it that hard to understand? Or do i have to spoon feed you another meal?

"For all your blather about racism, you sure do seem to be... anti-liberal? You think that conservatives are intrinsically better than liberals, which effectually makes you racist. Congrats hypocrite."

This is poster-board material for the classic libs in this country.

Question: since when was conservatism a race? I didnt know liberalism was a race either.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 Issa 8 years ago
Issa
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 jazzyfizzle 8 years ago
jazzyfizzle
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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 me_a 8 years ago
me_a
jazzyfizzleme_aTied
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