The Instigator
Sahaj
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
torterra
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Was George W. Bush a good President?

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 5 votes the winner is...
torterra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,109 times Debate No: 18915
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Sahaj

Con

George W. Bush is a great man indeed. He has cut funding from schools and libraries, opposed abortion even in cases of rape or incest, taken away half of the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, the list goes on. But the one blunder we all took notice of was invading Iraq. He invaded on the pretext that there were WMD's there, but the U.N. weapons inspectors found no trace of them whatsoever before that. Oh, cut it out George, we all know what it was for - OIL. That's right, petroleum to keep the SUVs (whose makers, by the way, were the biggest contributors to your election campaign) on the roas. You wouldn;t need oil if you had made them keep to the fuel efficiency standards imposed by the Clinton Administration, but we've all seen how much you care about the environment, putting a former oil company employee in the cahir of head of the Envoronmental Protection Agency. You shouldn't even be President, it is documented that you cheated in your election. Al Gore should have won, but your friends in Supreme Court made sure that didn't happen. I leave this topic open to anyone. I await your arguments.
torterra

Pro

First I would like to say thank you to Sahaj for challenging me to what I hope is a great debate. Though I am in debate in High School I have NEVER had the chance to debate a topic that is very interesting to me.
My first "contention" is directly from Bush
1. It was necessary.
This is a quote from Bush and a reporter that aired live on PBS.

The first thing is that he is determined to solve problems. That he identifies. Once he is convinced something is a problem, if he has the power to solve it, he will try to solve it. And we know in my business, journalism, that you live in a world of doubt.

He has no doubt. I asked him. I said, "Do you have any doubt?" And I asked it in the starkest terms. Because Tony Blair had said when he gets hate mail saying, "My son died in your war, and I hate you," Blair said publicly "You can't get letters like that and not have doubt."

I read that to President Bush in the Oval Office, thinking he might even say, "Well you know, Blair's got a point." He just ignited and just said, "No doubt. I have no doubt." And I, as a reporter spent a lot of time looking for doubt, looking for that moment when he kneeled on the floor,And, you know, asked for guidance or forgiveness or something. And I found no such moment.

And Bush's argument is, it was a considered decision. It was necessary. That's his job

Read more: http://www.pbs.org...
My second "contention" is that Bush was thinking of our country, and because of that even Barak Obama agrees we need troops over there.
"That's a commitment the president made to the country and I think he clearly wants to stand by that", states Panetta(secretary of defense).
And with this I end my portion of the round, and I ask for all of the readers and my opponent, that you firmly agree with my case and agree that president George W. Bush is a good man and a better president.!
Thank you and now I am open for round two!
Debate Round No. 1
Sahaj

Con

Your entire argument hinges around the fact that the Iraq invasion was necessary, but it wasn't. WMD's were never found there. George Bush had no doubt because he knew what he was doing it for - oil. The lives of young Americans meant nothing to him. And what about the budget cuts? He put 20 bn dollars into the Star Wars missile defense system. That money could have funded education for EVERY CHILD IN AMERICA for 5 years! Was that necessary? No one would use nukes against the U.S., and he knows it. Why is eh doing this? Because he wants to keep the people in fear, so he can do whatever he wants using it as a threat. George Bush cheated in his election- What do you have to say t0o that, when proof exists? He is nothing more that a tyrant.
torterra

Pro

Once again Thanks Sahaj.
This has been a great debate and it ended in a shorter time than my others in school!
My refutation for your thought "No one would use nukes against the U.S."
China trade is channeled through business enterprises directly controlled by the Korean People's Army, which is expanding its grip over the economy. Therefore, the connection between China's commercial ties with Pyongyang and its nuclear weapons program is tight.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
As for the "star wars" defense, this has been proven very usefull even if someone were to shoot missles at us this missle defense would be there to stop them from hitting another important place (ie. the WHITE HOUSE)
And i would love to see you evidence for how he cheated in his elections!
And tyrant is more of a pirate term so that really doesnt matter what he does, he atleast had his eye out for his country, which is more than i can say for most of our presidents.

I hope that the judges will agree with everything I have posted. I respectfully ask for a ballot in strong affirmation of the resolution which states that: Was George W. Bush a good President

I now end my portion of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
it is impossible the war was over oil for 2 reasons.

1. why would iraq give us the oil contracts because we just destroyed their goverment
2. Iraq has only 0.6% OF THE world oil reserves. So if Bush was really interested about the oil then we would invade iran, mexico, canada, or saudi arabia, heck maybe we would invade venezuela. So your oil argument makes no sense.
Posted by Sahaj 5 years ago
Sahaj
Yes, it was fun.
Posted by torterra 5 years ago
torterra
Yeah it was really an interesting debate but hey it was fun, it doesnt matter whether we win or lose as long as we have fun!! Right?
Posted by Conspiracy_Theory 5 years ago
Conspiracy_Theory
Wow I wish I saw this debate before it was accepted. :(
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I would vote pro,but i can't i haven't finished my 3 debates :(
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
SahajtorterraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty poor debate. It was close on the arguments because Pro had more substance and laid his arguments out better but Con's arguments were simply better. Pro had sources and Con did not.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
SahajtorterraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro could not prove that all the bad decisions made by Bush were necessary.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
SahajtorterraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed more reasons as to why Bush was not a good president and Pro did not address some of them. Con however weakened his own case by assuming the reasons behind his contentions without any justification whatsoever. ie: Saying that Bush invaded Iraq for WMD's which were never found is a convincing statement for Con, but saying that he did it for oil without substantiating it creates a distraction that takes away from the point he made. By doing this Con defeated his own argument.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
SahajtorterraTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never showed that the invasion was necessary or that just because he was thinking of the country he was a good president. He didn't really counter any of Con's claims.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
SahajtorterraTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Sahaj that Bush was a poor president, but he goes way out of line to accuse Bush of invading Iraq to keep people in fear, for oil resources, and accusing him of cheating in the election. Bush invaded Iraq for a bogus reason but Pro did identify that at the time there were rumors there were WMD's and he had to make a tough call that ultimately bit us all in the a$$. Con did make a few grammar mistakes and used no sources, complete argument goes to Pro even though i too despise Bush