The Instigator
PatriotPerson
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Galal
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Was George W. Bush the worst 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...
Galal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,154 times Debate No: 40891
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

PatriotPerson

Con

I am going to argue that George W. Bush was NOT the worst POTUS, and my opponent will argue that he was. First round is for acceptance.
Galal

Pro

I do accept your argument and I will solely pin point the issues that regard this matter.
Debate Round No. 1
PatriotPerson

Con

I will start by telling good things he did.

Help in Africa
Bush gave such money and effort to the poorest countries in Africa, and there was a noticeable difference in the quality of neighborhoods (mostly all of them) in Africa. From The Washington Post: "The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion." That seems pretty flippin' good to me.

Preventing Nuclear War between India and Pakistan
India and Pakistan were basically arch-enemies (I believe they still are) and were more than ready to use nuclear weapons. If Bush hadn't done anything about it, they probably would've. And whenever there's nukes involved, it's almost sure that the bombings will spread to other places.

9/11 Handling
Now, many people think going to war was a horrible choice Bush made. I'm not sure how I feel about it personally, but it certainly has lowered threats like Al Qaeda and prevented a second attack on a 9/11 level. And plus, during and after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was off the charts (in a good way). That obviously says something great about him.


More next round.
Galal

Pro

Yes George W. Bush my have had his good deeds, but they do not out weigh the terrible things he had committed against the world as well as the American citizens. I will started my argument with rebutting your point regarding 9/11. That is not a point to be adhered for George W. Bush.

9/11

However it's rather a black point in his shameful history. What happened was the US was ambushed with full on attack, even though I believe it was a governmental conspiracy (But I wish not to get involved in that matter since it is not our argument, however this should be a brief summary why the 9/11 incident was planned http://newsone.com..., Yet I am going to consider the fact that it was genuine) a lot of people died, In total, almost 3,000 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for fire fighters in the history of the United States. And what did the President do?

  1. Failed to act on warning signs of the September, 11th attacks.
  2. Failed to catch Ossama Bin Laden.
Your argument ' Bush's approval rating was off the charts (in a good way). That obviously says something great about him.' is merely subjective and does not hold any facts what so ever.

“The first one is an accident, the second one is an attack, the third one is a declaration of war,” he said flatly. “I had become a war-time president, and I wasn’t prepared for it.”

Now you tell me if those are the words of a President ready to endure when he is asked to, people should look up to him when in distress.


Preventing Nuclear War between India and Pakistan

The 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul was a suicide bomb terror attack on the Indianembassy in Kabul, Afghanistan on 7 July 2008 at 8:30 AM local time.[16]U.S.intelligence officials suggested that Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency had planned the attack.[17] Pakistan tried to deny any responsibility,[17][18] but United States PresidentGeorge W. Bush confronted Pakistani Prime MinisterYousuf Raza Gilani with evidence and warned him that in the case of another such attack he would have to take "serious action".[19]


What I am against here, is the idea of George W. Bush interference and middling in other countries business, as you can see that was a clear warning, and aggressive one. Threatening Pakistani Prime Minister, even though it is none of the US matters.

And it is that kind of attitude that lead George W. Bush dwell into more of his wrong actions.

More points will be discussed in further rounds.


-Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://newsone.com...
http://www.neontommy.com...
Debate Round No. 2
PatriotPerson

Con

"I believe it was a governmental conspiracy..."
What the flip?

"Failed to act on warning signs of the September, 11th attacks."
Well, I don't blame him. The attacks happened in 2001, the same year he was inaugurated, thus only giving him a matter of moths TO prepare. And trust me when I say that with all the combined stresses of the presidency, a matter of months is not near enough to prepare for something that big.

"Failed to catch Ossama Bin Laden."
That may be true. However, without Bush's declaration of war, Osama would very well still be alive.

"...is merely subjective and does not hold any facts what so ever."
Actually it does. The full name of those polls are "Presidential Job Approval Ratings". If so many citizens agree/support his job in office, that must mean he did a decent job. And I also will state that Bush's is currently higher than Obama's. So, in order to make more sense, you should be believing that Obama is the worst U.S. president.

"He said flatly, 'I had become a war-time president, and I wasn't prepared for it."
Please refer to the attached video.


"...George W. Bush interference and middling in other countries business..."
Well that's what the USA is supposed to do. We're in a way the World Police. Being the world superpower, if countries can't solve their own conflicts, we have to at least try to help.

"Newsone"
Newsone tends to be a biased and incorrect source. If I may direct the voters here: http://newsone.com...
Galal

Pro

Thank you for your effort, I would like to note out some comments before proceeding:

1. I clearly said that I do not intend to argue the fact that it was a conspiracy, that is why I used the words 'I believe' and it was between brackets. However If you intend to rebute something. 'What the flip?' Is not a good counter argument, even if it does sound unreasonable for you.

2. No it is merely subjective. And what you are referring to are his Elections approval, as time went and his deeds flourished in front of the audience. His share of supporters declined, here are the statistics:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

As you can see, Bush's share of supporters/audience dramatically decreases as times goes up.


3. Yes he did say that, and that should be taken against him. Your video however does not include him saying that. It's a reference to some other quote, where he is relying on help from other countries so it seems.

4. No the US has no right to be World Police, just because you think it's the world super power. China is a strong rival to the US nowadays. And you do not hear China middling in other countries affairs. Simply because it's none of it's Business. And it's that kind of attitude that got the US or more like George Bush to commit the mistakes I am willing to discuss in this argument.

5. Unless you can proof that newsone.com is 'a biased' source. Feel free to argue this some other time. But no you don't have claims to support your verdicts.

6. Finally six, failing to act against a warning and not catching Osama Bin Laden does not work in favor of George W. Bush. And how do you know Bin Ladin is dead? Have you seen any footage? No. Because they threw his body in the river. What a joke.

NOW WE MOVE ON TO GEORE W. BUSH IRAQ INVASION.

George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in claim of the search for 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' which they did not find. Not only did it cost the lives of thousands of American Soldiers, Civilians but it also was a bold factor in the Economical Depression that persisted later on find it hard to believe or comprehend that the US intelligence (CIA) dived in there with the hope of finding WMDs.I believe it was nothing but a fake mask to raid Iraq's soil and oil/gas resources. Not only did they not find anything once they succeeded to shatter Iraq apart,



    1. Used torture to interrogate prisoners despite evidence that says information acquired through unreliable.

    1. Made use of Iraq's natural resources, mainly oil/gas.

    1. Failed to plan for Iraq occupation after Saddam’s government fell and thesubsequent occupation has killed 150,000 Iraqi civilians.

    1. Allowed Don Rumsfeld to outsource much of the Iraq war to security contractorswhich are not subject to Iraqi or American military laws or standards.

    1. Dissolving the Iraqi army right after the war, putting thousands of trained soldiers into the insurgency.

    1. His policies contributed to a quadrupling of the price of oil, which he later sold to the KSA.

    1. Lied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda





This video shows the true colors of your beloved CIA, and how honest they are. (THE VIDEO IS IN RELATION WITH PRISON FACILITIES AND THE FACT THAT THEY LIED WITH FALSE REASONS TO INVADE IRAQ)



McCain 'THINKS' they will find WMDs. Yet another American joke within the era of Bush.



And there is your fearsome leader being comical with the audience as if he had committed a trivial error.



I recommend that you watch this.



Conclusion regarding this matter:

THE US GOVERNMENT INVADED IRAQ WITH THE HOPES OF LOCATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BUT THEY DID NOT FIND ANY WHAT SO EVER. INSTEAD THEY FOUND BLOOD TO BE SHED, INCLUDING THEIR OWN SOLDIERS. THEY SPENT AN UNPLANNED BUDGET ON THIS WAREFARE, WHICH WE LATER SUFFERED IT'S CONSEQUENCES AND THEY ABUSED THE RESOURCES OF IRAQ WHILE THEY WERE IN SEARCH FOR THOSE WEAPONS. AND FINALLY THEY SHATTERED THE GOVERNMENT AND CAUSED THE COUNTRY TO FALL INTO A CIVIL WAR, THAT THEY ARE FINDING A HARD TIME RECOVERING FROM TILL THIS VERY DAY.

AND I WILL EMPHASIZE MY ARGUMENT AGAIN, BEING A SUPERME POWER DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHT WHAT SO EVER TO INTERFERE IN ANY COUNTRIES AFFAIR, EVEN IF YOU HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS. THATS WHY WE HAVE THE UNITED NATIONS OTHER WISE THERE IS NO POINT. AND FURTHER MORE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH THE US INTERFERENCE. YOU SHOULD BE OKAY WITH BEING BULLIED BY A CLASS MATE AT SCHOOL JUST BECAUSE HE IS BIGGER THAN YOU, HE HAS TO THE RIGHT TO ADJUST THE REST OF THE CLASS AS HE PLEASES.



More issues will be discussed later on.
Debate Round No. 3
PatriotPerson

Con

My opponent has made many claims shining negative light on the war on terror. I ask my opponent to please realize the benefits of this war, instead of being so pessimistic about it:
1. Without the war, there is almost a 100% chance that Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.
2. Without the war, there would still be the fierce terrorist groups.
3. Those terrorist groups would still be in power.
4. Yes, the war claims lives, but what war doesn't? That's what war IS. And compared to how many inncocents the terrorists have killed, the war makes sense.
5. Think about WWII and the Nazis compared to the War on Terror and the terrorist groups. Before US involvement in WW2, most Americans supported joining the war to stop the Nazi threat. The terrorist threat is as equal, if not worse, than the Nazi threat. I bet almost 100% that you approve of American involvement in WW2, so why not approve of US involvement in the War on Terror?
6. Believe it or not, the War on Terror has strengthened alliances with countries. As the war goes on, countries are coming together to put an end on this terrorist threat. These countries include:
-The United States
-The United Kingdom
-Parts of Afghanistan
-Parts of Pakistan
-Parts of Yemen
-Parts of Iraq

These and many others are just some of the countries allied against the terrorist threat.

Help in Africa
I just have to bring this up again. Bush caused many, many lives in the poorest African countries to be saved. Please tell me how this is not a GREAT thing. This alone is superior to Buchanan's entire his presidency, but that is a whole different debate (would you like to have that?). Please read this article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com...;

HomelandSecurity
Bush started Homeland Security, which basically strongly influences and increases safety among Americans. This is almost exactly the reason why a major attack on US soil hasn't happened since 2001, twelve years ago.
If you ask me and pretty much anyone else, that's pretty freakin' good.

Accepted record numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers:
I get this from this source:
( http://civilliberty.about.com...;)

" During the second term of the Clinton administration, the United States accepted an average of 60,000 refugees per year and 7,000 asylum-seekers per year. From 2001 to 2006, under the leadership of President Bush, the United States accepted more than four times as many asylum-seekers--some 32,000 per year--and an average of 87,000 refugees per year. "

Bush was getting help to people who needed and wanted help, but could not get it. In fact, he helped so many people that it was fourfold the amount Clinton did.

Protecting American Muslims
After the 9/11 attacks, most Americans began to get a sense of xenophobia against Muslims and other citizens from the middle-east. Bush strongly discouraged such fears, often meeting with friendly Middle-Eastern groups, and making sure that the rights of Muslims in America were not infringed. This action is unlike many presidents before Lincoln, for example, that encouraged slavery (not all of them).

Extending Executive Branch
The Executive branch is the president and his cabinet. Before Bush was president, there had never been a person of color in this branch. Bush appointed many colored men and women to his cabinet offices, which basically destroys any claims of him being rascist. Some of these people were Alberto Gonzales, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

Protection of the Right to Bear Arms
The Bush administration influenced and extended this constitutional right, which destroys any claims that Bush did not follow the consitution. Any good president follows the constitution. And if he didn't, he would have been impeached.


Galal

Pro


'1. Without the war, there is almost a 100% chance that Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.'

I would like to clarify that George W. Bush himself admits that Saddam Hussien had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.



So, Iraq invasion has nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism rather than the false claim of Iraq being in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info...

Here is my source.

I would also like to point out that my opponent failed to provide me with convincing arguments, as most of them are subjective:

'1. Without the war, there is almost a 100% chance that Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.'
'2. Without the war, there would still be the fierce terrorist groups.'
'3. Those terrorist groups would still be in power.'

Three of the arguments are repetitive and they do not shed further light on the argument. However since I have proved that the reasons for invading Iraq were because of WMDs and Iraqi resources. And since it is not an act of 'terrorism' to own WMDs therefore, invading Iraq under FALSE pretenses does not clarify or forgive the blood that has been shed on both sides, the damage that has been done both domestically and to the Iraqi government.

Your entire argument is based on the fact that this is war on Terror while in fact it's but a mere reason to ravish the Iraqi Oil/Gas resources.

Failed to plan for Iraq occupation after Saddam’s government fell and the: I would like to remind everyone that after the US 'defeated terror in Iraq' they still persisted of squeezing Iraq for every ounce of oil and resources it had left, even though their reasons for staying there, or rather 'mission' has been accomplished.

And after witnessing the statistics, I would come to agree that George W. Bush made the US look like the Nazis here.
Here are the statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Now since you have already mentioned Help in Africa before, I am going to spare my time and jump into something more useful. And that is Home Land Security:

Besides the fact that Home Land Security has become an unconstitutional department by time, as it did all the illegal actions it could in order to 'protect the Land'. I do not see what was the point of adding to the US a new Executive department with a huge budget (30,000,000$) When you already supposed to have Department Defense, and of course the Military.

The DHS budget jumped from $19.5 billion in 2002 to $44.1 billion in 2010. What do we get for our money?

  • Wasteful overlap remains. The budgets of the individual agencies are as large as or larger than they were before the DHS was created.
  • The DHS budget keeps expanding. Congress doesn't want to be labeled as "against security."
  • The DHS is unfocused. It covers unwieldy functions ranging from anti-counterfeiting, border security, and computer incident response. As David Rittgers notes, "Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics."
  • Most foiled "terror plots" were really "sting" operations of the FBI, not the work of DHS agencies.


WHICH BRINGS UP TO OUR OTHER PROBLEM:

Democrats of course excoriate the damage done to the budget by waging two wars while cutting taxes, his conduct after Hurricane Katrina and his shoot from the hip style, not to mention that fact that he presided over the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.


When Bush came to power, the country had a surplus of $300 billion.

George W. Bush entered office with peace, prosperity and a surplus

At that time, unemployment was about 4 percent. The Dow was at 10,578 (having risen from 3241 at the beginning of Clinton's term, eight years earlier), and we had a surplus (in 2000, the surplus was $236 billion).
But then how about by the time he left the office? When George W. Bush left office in January, 2009, we were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq (tow countries which didn't attack us), unemployment was at 8 percent and rising fast. The Dow was at 7949. And we had a deficit (in 2008 we had a deficit of $458 billion).

Even though starting a war should be a way out of recession.

And usually, a lot of spending cuts unemployment (and raises the deficit). George W. Bush managed to give us a deficit while starting wars and while unemployment was increasing.

Here are the five factors:
  1. Taxes were cut.
  2. 2$ trillion were spent over unwinnable wars over terror. (And they still failed to catch Bin Ladin with so much money spent)
  3. We doubled discretionary spending. Some conservatives originally aimed to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes in order to force future cuts in spending. But spending grew so out of control in Bush's term that no beast was starved, Roubini said. In fact, the beast was fed.
  4. We added entitlement benefits like the Medicare drug benefit
  5. We entered the largest economic and financial crisis ever, which caused a huge increase in the deficit through the "recession deficit" and the cost of bailing out the banks and financial institutions.
  6. Failed to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies, where they provided Citizens with houses while knowing in advance that they will not be able to complete their payment in the future. Those agencies took the risk even though red flags were raised, they expanded their risk territory and the US economy along with the world had to pay for it.

Bush said he could not foresee the economic crisis, saying he trusted his financial advisers, then-Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Ben Bernanke and former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a federal program that attempted to address the sub prime mortgage crisis by giving $750 billion to Wall Street banks.

"I can't prove that the actions we took saved the depression. I can tell you we didn't have one," Bush said. "I would do the same thing again.

Not only would he commit the SAME fallacies again, but he took all those drastic actions without knowing the implications of his own doings, that does not sound like a very fearsome leader to me. Which reminds me of the former quote, in the earlier argument.


The first one is an accident, the second one is an attack, the third one is a declaration of war,” he said flatly. “I had become a war-time president, and I wasn’t prepared for it.”

The first one is an accident, the second one is an attack, the third one is a declaration of war,” he said flatly. “I had become a war-time president, and I wasn’t prepared for it.”

Even though they have been warned by El-Qaeda in advance his government still failed to prepare for the upcoming attack. He failed to save lives. I find it hard to believe that the US air defense system could not foresee two airplanes invading their radars and premises, If this was a mistake. Then it's a grave unforgivable one.


I would say that George W. Bush had done a lot more bad than good for the world, and for the US citizens as well.

Thank you.



Sources:

Debate Round No. 4
PatriotPerson

Con

"So, Iraq invasion has nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism rather than the false claim of Iraq being in possession..."
Are you kdding me? 9/11 was the whole reason the declaration was decided. Similar to with Pearl Harbor. And if it's not about terrorism, why is it called "The War on Terror"?
_________________________________________________
I've said this numerous times, but the main reason of the war was to end terrorism. I understand that Weapons of Mass Destruction is another factor, but what must be understood is that terrorism needs and needed to be stopped and (no matter how bad it is), war is the only way to do so. Take these statistics for example:

INCIDENTS OF TERRORISM, WORLDWIDE*

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Attacks worldwide 14,415 11,663 10,968 11,641 10,283
Attacks resulting in at least 1 death, injury, or kidnapping 11,085 8,361 7,874 8,259 7,453
Attacks resulting in the death of at least 10 individuals 353 234 236 193 193
Attacks resulting in the death of at least 1 individual 7,229 5,040 4,761 4,704 4,502
Attacks resulting in the death of only 1 individual 3,982 2,870 2,695 2,691 2,550
Attacks resulting in the death of 0 individuals 7,186 6,623 6,207 6,937 5,781
Attacks resulting in the injury of at least 1 individual 6,231 4,831 4,530 4,724 4,333
Attacks resulting in the kidnapping of at least 1 individual 1,156 948 882 1,118 795
People killed, injured or kidnapped as a result of terrorism,
worldwide
71,803 54,290 58,720 49,928 43,990
People killed as a result of terrorism, worldwide 22,720 15,709 15,311 13,193 12,533
People injured as a result of terrorism, worldwide 44,103 33,901 32,660 30,684 25,903
People kidnapped as a result of terrorism, worldwide 4,980 4,680 10,749 6,051 5,554

As you can see, without the War on Terror, the statistics for deaths caused by terrorism would still be very high. These numbers are decreasing significantly overtime because of Bush's declaration. Therefore, Bush has technically (TECHNICALLY, don't make me lose points for that) saved thousands of innocent lives. I think that's a wonderful thing.

Now, maybe these decreases aren't that large and there are the increases (which are by rather small numbers), but war is never easy. You can't always get exactly what you want out of war. But, it's good that the death tolls are decreasing.

Source: http://www.state.gov...;

__________________________________________________________

"Besides the fact that Home Land Security has become an unconstitutional department..."
Do tell how it is unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional, it would be gone by now.
______________________________________

And with your arguments about the unemployment rate and other rising problems during and after Bush's administration, that isn't entirely his fault. Mostly Congress and past presidents are to blame, not Bush.
_______________

And about the wall street banks thing, we can't call that a good or bad thing until it actually happens. Until then, it's basically pointless to use it as an argument against Bush.

"He failed to save lives"
Please refer to the above chart.

_____________________________________________________________________

I will now compare other presidents to Bush, to show that Bush was not the worst.

James Buchanan
Buchanan did literally nothing. He did nothing to stop a fierce war in his OWN country, and he basically split his own country into two different ones. Bush has done many wonderful things to his country, certainly more good things than Buchanan. To me and many others, that already sets Buchanan as worse than Buchanan.
May I also mention that Buchanan also dreaded his job while Bush enjoyed his, constantly cracking clever jokes and just having a good time, and being a nice guy. Buchanan matched none of these.

Andrew Johnson
Not only was Johnson impeached and got very close to conviction and removal from office, he almost illegally took Alaska as a US territory (I'm not saying it shouldn't be a state). He also tried to take powers into his hands that did not belong there, that being the main reason he was impeached.

William Henry Harrison
It's quite obvious that Harrison was worse than Bush. He died after a month, and did nothing. I know it's not exactly fair because Harrison didn't have much of a chance, but he is still a lot worse than Bush. This situation is the same with the twentieth president, James A. Garfield.


I could go on with many other presidents, but since this debate is going to an end, I shall finish there. Voters, please realize that many presidents were a lot worse than Bush, as I have explained above. Voters, have a good life, and

VOTE FOR ME!!
Galal

Pro

In this round I would like to make a point clear that my opponent has not clarified his argument, by arguing Wither George W. Bush is the worst President. In my opinion his argument title is quite vague as he had not used the word ‘ever’ I am going to perceive the argument as the worst President during my life time, as I have not experienced the era of other Presidents and due to the circumstance of my own experience I am going to assume that George W. Bush is in fact the worst President during my life time. I believe that this would perfectly hold its ground in court. As my opponent might use the term it’s obvious.

There is no such thing as obvious, unless you make it so.

For furthermore.

During my round I am going to summarize my arguments, regarding George W. Bush being the worst President, and in the mean time I am going to criticize the flaws of his argumentation and point out where he went wrong.

While my opponent failed to give any strong reasons, and given that all of his claims are rather biased and subjective, they are also quite reptetive.

Here are the main points of my argument:

My Opponent still claims that this was a war on terror even though I clearly proved that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, yet he presisted without proving me otherwise and introduced some chart showing the damage terrorism has implemented in the past recent years. This is quite pointless as I have proved that Iraq was a war lead to seek out WMDs.

Help in Africa (Racial related point)
I just have to bring this up again. Bush caused many, many lives in the poorest African countries to be saved. Please tell me how this is not a GREAT thing. This alone is superior to Buchanan's entire his presidency, but that is a whole different debate (would you like to have that?). Please read this article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com......;

HomelandSecurity
Bush started Homeland Security, which basically strongly influences and increases safety among Americans. This is almost exactly the reason why a major attack on US soil hasn't happened since 2001, twelve years ago.
If you ask me and pretty much anyone else, that's pretty freakin' good.

Accepted record numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers: (Racial related point)
I get this from this source:

Protecting American Muslims (Racial Related Point)
After the 9/11 attacks, most Americans began to get a sense of xenophobia against Muslims and other citizens from the middle-east. Bush strongly discouraged such fears, often meeting with friendly Middle-Eastern groups, and making sure that the rights of Muslims in America were not infringed. This action is unlike many presidents before Lincoln, for example, that encouraged slavery (not all of them).

Extending Executive Branch (Racial Related Point)
The Executive branch is the president and his cabinet. Before Bush was president, there had never been a person of color in this branch. Bush appointed many colored men and women to his cabinet offices, which basically destroys any claims of him being rascist. Some of these people were Alberto Gonzales, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

Protection of the Right to Bear Arms (As a matter of fact this point is not a fact and it is quite debatable, as some would say that it has increased the crime rate in the US, so in my opinion this weakens my opponent’s position)
The Bush administration influenced and extended this constitutional right, which destroys any claims that Bush did not follow the consitution. Any good president follows the constitution. And if he didn't, he would have been impeached.

My opponent has emphasized that basically George W. Bush is a good person as he is not a racist, he cares about other ethnic groups and religions.



Not racist at all.

However

Preventing Nuclear War between India and Pakistan
India and Pakistan were basically arch-enemies (I believe they still are) and were more than ready to use nuclear weapons. If Bush hadn't done anything about it, they probably would've. And whenever there's nukes involved, it's almost sure that the bombings will spread to other places.

9/11 Handling
Now, many people think going to war was a horrible choice Bush made. I'm not sure how I feel about it personally, but it certainly has lowered threats like Al Qaeda and prevented a second attack on a 9/11 level. And plus, during and after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was off the charts (in a good way). That obviously says something great about him.

Those points were turned against him as I pointed out that the US has no business interfering in other countries affairs, and I rebutted his other argument regarding 9/11 with the fact that they have failed to catch Ossama Bin Ladin, They have failed to act even though they have been warned, and they used this terminology ‘War on Terror’ to engage in two unwinnable wars with false pretenses and vague reasons.

My opponent also believe that the US has every right to interfere in other countries affairs because it’s the supreme power, and in his words ‘The World Police’ That does not add any value to George W. Bush, but rather it is but a Philosophy, a biased one if I may add.



NOW I WILL LIST MY POINT OF VIEW REGARDING GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE ACTIONS THAT MAKE HIM THE WORST MODERN PRESIDENT TO HAVE EVER CROSSED THE US HISTORY:

  1. Invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs which didn’t exist
  2. Never caught Osama Bin Laden
  3. Failed to plan for Iraq occupation after Saddam’s government fell and thesubsequent occupation has killed 150,000 Iraqi civilians.
  4. Created a vague “enemy combatant” status in order to indefinitely hold foreigners and even US citizens without trying or charging them with a crime.
  5. Used torture to interrogate prisoners despite evidence that says information acquired through unreliable
  6. Prematurely said the mission in Iraq had been accomplished.
  7. Approved budgets that outspent our tax revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars.
  8. Poor leadership on response to Hurrican Katrina
  9. Dangerous diplomatic philosophy that discourages peaceful negotiations with certain nations.
  10. Lied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda
  11. George W. Bush entered office with peace, prosperity and a surplus
  1. 12. George W. Bush left office with war, recession and a deficit
  2. 13. Creating Home Land Security which was established with no planned budget and strictly unnecessary, and added no value to the US government, but rather all it did was abuse the US economy and therefore affecting the world.

I will provide you again with the statistcs, of how George W. Bush lost his share of supporters as time went by.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Finally, I would like to note that pleading for votes just shows how inscincere you are about this argument, and you are here simply dishonoring to the audience, I would not want any of your votes unless you genuinely believe in my claims.

Food for thought.

Thank you for your time.

Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD

Con's arguments were frustrating to read as I ended up reciting to myself "correlation is not causation." His main arguments were simply baseless assertions and "causation is correlation" logical fallacies that he proposed with an air of confidence. For instance, I failed to see any causation between the war on Iraq and the fact that terrorist numbers are currently decreasing. As Pro pointed out, the Iraq war was pretty much useless as it didn't target terrorists and didn't achieve its goals in fighting a war on terror or getting the WMDs. Pro also pointed out many things that Con did not refute such as the economic deficit and great depression in Bush's era and the bad decisions that Bush took and then publicly regretted. Con brought up some good points like Bush helping in Africa, but that didn't convince me that he wasn't the worst president as all presidents enroll in some form of charity. Con compared Bush to previous presidents but Pro argued that he understood the resolution as "worst in my lifetime." I find this justifiable as the opening statement was not clear about that. In conclusion, Con had many bad arguments which lost him debate as he could have offered more substantial arguments to prove his case.

Con was hostile at first and said "what the flip?" to counter something he didn't even need to address, as Pro clearly stated that he believes the 9-11 was an inside job but that he would assume it wasn't for the sake of argumentation. I take this as a personal insult that goes along the lines of "You seriously believe that? Oh God..." Con was not hostile but simply loud when arguing through capitalization, but he did not make rude gestures so he deserves the conduct point.
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
@Gs325jcbd: I completely agree.
Posted by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
James Buchanan
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Did Bush do more harm than good is a fine debate topic. Was Bush the worst is not. Worst is general and relevative. Con hands his opponent an extreme position and the BOP. All Con has to do is argue that he was not the worst which is an easy task. We've had presidents who have been impeached. We've had presidents who were blatantly corrupt. We've had a president who contracted pneumonia at his inaguration and died a month later. Showing that Bush might not be worst by contrast is shooting fish in a barrell. Nor does it say much for Bush that his defenders need to set the standard so low.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
In addition to the fairly large number of presidents, each faced with (arguably ever-increasingly) complex issues, there is no agreed upon criteria for the judgement of a president's service.

Is expanding welfare considered successful? Would it ever have been considered successful?
Is a president's sole duty to US citizens, or does he have a responsibility to the world?
What state of economic control should a president strive for?
etc.

Not only are these far from agreed upon, exactly what you're measuring is also vague. If we say that we will value presidents positively for increasing welfare (for argument's sake), then FDR made monumental "positive" changes, but undoubtedly many presidents with such sweeping control over Congress would have made similar changes. Is FDR a "better" president because he accomplished more, albeit with greater political power?

I feel like any debate on this question would quickly deteriorate into a difference of political opinion and values, as well as what exactly one is judging :/
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
Maybe.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
I'd argue that Reagan was the worst president. Could you do a debate about that?
Posted by fuzala 3 years ago
fuzala
That's so hard to argue in my opinion. There were so many presidents. So many good and bad presidents.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
PatriotPersonGalalTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good, strong debate. Don't see most of these anymore. PRO won in the big categories but lost a few points due to worse conduct in round five and a few spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
PatriotPersonGalalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.