The Instigator
PatriotPerson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
austinlaam
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Who was the best U.S. President? II

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 3 votes the winner is...
austinlaam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,716 times Debate No: 40054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

PatriotPerson

Con

This is the same as my last debate with the same title, but I started it over again because last time my opponent ultra-forfeited. So, here's how it works:
Round 1: Acceptance and you tell me who you think the best president was.
Round 2: I give reasons why he was not the best and you give reasons why he was the best.
Round 3: I counter your arguments and make further ones. You do the same.
Round 4: Same as above
Round 5: Final arguments and concluding statements.
austinlaam

Pro

I've accepted this debate. My president of choice will be Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Debate Round No. 1
PatriotPerson

Con

1. New Deal: Many people argue this was a poor economic plan which was all created by FDR. This point is debatable, though it is pretty easy to back it up. If you want me to, I will next round.

2. Japanese-American internment camps: This was really messed up. In fact, one of the only things I will admit was a shameful part of American history, and that's saying something (refer to my username). Here's the story:
After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, people, mainly in the government, were suspicious of Japanese-Americans, mainly immigrants from Japan. The fear was that these people could be spies for the Japanese government and that they could be plotting attacks from the inside. So, in order to calm those fears, many Japanese-Americans were held in internment camps. FDR was partly responsible for this decision.

3. Rejection from allies: Many allies and appointees of FDR turned against him, even his own VP: John N. Garner. Others include brain truster Raymond Moley, Postmaster General James A. Farley, and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy (fun fact: he was JFK's dad). I know this says practically nothing about his performance as a president, but his performance as a person.

More next round.
austinlaam

Pro

Pass.

*Not enough arguments or me to argue.




Debate Round No. 2
PatriotPerson

Con

Fail. Make arguments or you will undoubtedly lose this debate.
austinlaam

Pro

"You can only have one aim per debate" -Christopher Hitchens



I. Countering your arguments.

I can not address your arguments because they address the man, not the president. But, if I must, I will.

1. This whole "New Deal" criticism is crazy. You will probably argue that the New Deal didn't end depression, WWII did. You are semi right. The only things that's are not right are the reasons. According to Linda Gordon, Professor at NYU, these are the two problems [1]:

A) Many modern state programs, whether created by executive order or by legislation, are never funded to the extent necessary to realize them, and as a result we never know if they would have worked or not. This problem is characteristic of government activity in many areas, domestic and foreign, and particularly in regulatory systems mandated but without adequate inspection or enforcement personnel. Hundreds of initiatives fall into this category, from drug treatment to pollution control to foreign aid to public education to record maintenance to transportation to the War on Poverty.
B) Particularly common to welfare-state programs, in the larger sense of welfare that includes health care, education, and attempts to alleviate poverty, is a two-tier structure that provides the least for those who need the most. These tiers are often counter-intentional and counter-intuitive: one level of generous and honorable benefits from the relatively prosperous, and another that is stingy and disreputable for the poor. The two tiers function to create inequality in several ways:

  • the neediest are often excluded altogether from the better programs
  • programs provide more government funds go to the prosperous than to the poor
  • payments to the prosperous are disguised, sometimes intentionally as with Social Security Old Age Pensions, so as to be unnoticeable while payments to the poor are extremely public and, thus, both stigmatizing and resented. Only the latter are typically called redistributive.

The New Deal programs have an IMPRESSIVE record of accomplishment. They decreased unemployment and increased production. From FDR Inauguration to 1936 unemployment dropped 15 percent from 25 percent to 10 percent. The New Deal helped many people survive and live immensely better.

2. Japanese-American Internment Camps.

- I can't argue for this. It was morally wrong. It also hurt FDR's Japanese fans. If the Con could, please stick to the presidential ideals and not the moral ideals.

3. Same goes for #2.


II. My argument for FDR.

A) Franklin D. Roosevelt truly "inherited" a massive economic problem from his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. He handled it perfectly and got us out of the problem.


B) H
e started a program that not only impacted those suffering through the Great Depression, but contributed to the military needs when our country entered World War II. He began a program which allowed kids sixteen years old and older to enjoy the wilderness and get away from city life, IE: build cabins, construct hiking trails. These kids ate well, worked hard, sent money home to their families and received an education.
When we entered the war, there was a ready supply of well-trained young men with engineering skills, etc. who went into the military.
Even today, some of the cabins and hiking trails are still in use in many of our parks across the country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with everything he really was what the country needed in one of its darkest moments.


C) Economically, he became president during the Great Depression, which impacted not only the United States, but was felt world-wide. He established many programs and pushed laws through Congress that are still in force today including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to addressed the rampant abuses on Wall Street that helped create the depression, and a series of aggressive public works programs to create jobs that included the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

D) He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war. He helped establish WONDERFUL policies with Winston Churchill and Britain, as well as Joseph Stalin and Russia, that determined strategy for dealing with Nazi Germany and Japan, as well as pushing the creation of the atomic bomb that Truman eventually agreed to drop in Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. His decision to use the Lend-Lease Act to effectively isolate Germany even before the United States entered World War II, kept Great Britain and Russia afloat for the first few years of the war. He also strengthened US military bases in the Pacific and other areas of the world that would establish US dominance following the war.

E) Socially, his economic programs led to improved living standards, particularly in the South, through increased availability of electricity through the TVA, improved transportation and communication networks, and improved integration in the work place and the military. He also had a woman serve on his cabinet, was influenced by his wife Eleanor in improving social services for the underprivileged, and promoted numerous recovery programs for those hardest hit by the Dust Bowl and other natural disasters that occurred during the Depression.

III. Conclusion of Round 3.

Great debate so far. I hope your next arguments are as hard to answer as the first time.



Sources:

[1] http://hnn.us...

* http://en.wikipedia.org...
* http://en.wikipedia.org...
* http://en.wikipedia.org...
*http://www.ccclegacy.org...
* http://www.princeton.edu...
* http://www.infoplease.com...
* http://www.ssa.gov...



Debate Round No. 3
PatriotPerson

Con

"Still, you must make multiple arguments in a debate." -PatriotPerson


I. Countering your arguments.

"I can not address your arguments because they address the man, not the president."
Only the third one addresses the man. The first and second on addressed the president.

Problems with the New Deal

My source: http://www.cato.org...

FDR's New Deal put excise taxes on everyday things like alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios --
these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which means the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats", one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Please refer to the other paragraphs and statements given in the article in the source...it cleary explains why the New Deal was bad, and it counters pretty much most of your arguments about the New Deal.


"The New Deal helped many people survive and live immensly better."
Oh, so ridiculous taxes on everyday things that poor people needed and deserved helped them? It made their lives WORSE.


"If the Con could, please stick to the presidential ideals and not the moral ideals."
The establishment of Japanese-American internment camps is not just a moral ideal. It also, majorly, fits with his presidential performance. The best president would not make innocent citizens of his own country go into camps. That is a very un-American thing to do, and FDR did just that.
How does that effect his performance as president, you ask? Well, there's the fact that thousands of his Japanese-American supporters turned against him, and I believe that lowered his approval rating significantly. Also, every action a president does is either good or bad. That's why being president is so stressful, and why they start looking older really quickly. The action of putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps is quite obviously a bad one. Bad actions cause normal or good presidents to become bad presidents. And since this debate is about who was the best president, a president cannot be the best if they do too many bad things.

"Franklin D. Roosevelt truly 'inherited' a massive economic problem from his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. He handled it perfectly and got us out of the problem."
Not really. Though he is partly responsible for the end of the Great Depression, we have to recognize that the New Deal was also a hard thing on America. So, in other words, FDR threw out one bad thing and put in a new one.

And my arguments about the poor quality of the New Deal counter the majority of your "B. and C." arguments.

"He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war."
He was only partly responsible. Most of the leadership of the USA during WW2 was also caused by his multiple VPs, Harry Truman (for the few months of WWII he was president), and the rest of his cabinet. Not to mention all the brave men that fought in the military, and all the great women who worked and contributed much of their time to the allied cause.

as well as Joseph Stalin and Russia."
Obviously those weren't that great, speaking as there was this thing called the Cold War almost directly after WWII.
austinlaam

Pro

"Trust me, I will" - austinlaam

I. I don't even know.

The source the Con provided is bias [1]. Con provided a bias source, with a bias writer that wrote the column (Jim Powell).

II. Countering Con's Arguments.

1. " FDR's New Deal put excise taxes on everyday things like alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios --
these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which means the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats", one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

I knew the con would have to bring up the tax part. I don't think the con understands that the government can not just pint more money and fix all of our problems. The ONLY way that we could have funded all of the GOOD social programs that came from the New Deal is TAXES. I'm not sure if the Con pays taxes, or has ever paid taxes, its not my business but, let me teach con a little lesson. Taxes pays for almost every single thing you do. Yet, I do not condone the fireside chat excise taxes. If you could, site the evidence for the fireside chat excise taxes thing.


2. "
He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war."
He was only partly responsible. Most of the leadership of the USA during WW2 was also caused by his multiple VPs, Harry Truman (for the few months of WWII he was president), and the rest of his cabinet. Not to mention all the brave men that fought in the military, and all the great women who worked and contributed much of their time to the allied cause. "

Come on. The con has stated this ridiculous claim with no evidence. He also states, "Not to mention all the brave men that fought in the military, and all the great women who worked and contributed much of their time to the allied cause." The Con thinks that men that FOUGHT in the war had some impact on whether or not we got into the war or not? Obviously I wasn't saying that FDR got onto the battlefield, fought and because of him we won. I was saying He was responsible for LEADING the United states into WWII. To bring up the men and women who helped the allied cause is irrelevant and should not have been included in his argument.



[1] This is the bias website sited by the Con:
http://www.cato.org...


Debate Round No. 4
PatriotPerson

Con

"The source the Con provided is bias. Con provided a bias source, with a bias writer that wrote the column (Jim Powell).
Excuse me, but do tell how it is so biased. Just going and calling something bias without evidence is bias in itself.

"I don't think the con understands that the government can not just pint (PatriotPerson corrects your spelling: print) more money and fix all of our problems."
Oh, I understand that. I understand that BIG TIME. I just don't think that a good president would put such taxes on such things. It would be more logical to put taxes on things like paint, fireplaces, and other things. The stuff that rich people take for granted. That would make the New Deal a good deal.

"If you could, site the evidence for the fireside chat excise taxes thing."
That came directly from the article I provided.

"The Con thinks that men that FOUGHT in the war had some impact on whether or not we got into the war or not?"
You should really say your points better. I will quote exactly what you said on this topic: "He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war." By making this statement and then saying you were going for something else, you are contradicting yourself.
It is obvious that the soldiers played a very important role in leadership, because if they hadnt've been there, we couldn't even have fought in the first place. Anyone can tell that is obvious.
austinlaam

Pro

Ah my friends, the final round.



I. Countering Con's Arguments.

1.
"Excuse me, but do tell how it is so biased. Just going and calling something bias without evidence is bias in itself."
I do apologize for not backing up my information. Yet, Cato Institute has been known for YEARS to be extremely biased. It was founded by one of the Koch brothers for God sakes. The evidence is in the website. Read some articles.

"The Cato Institute and Rasmussen polls are often cited by conservatives that support certain social and political ideas, so are these organizations non-biased and their results to be trusted? Some critics don’t think so." [1]

2. Con says this while discussing my claim about taxes, "Oh, I understand that. I understand that BIG TIME. I just don't think that a good president would put such taxes on such things. It would be more logical to put taxes on things like paint, fireplaces, and other things. The stuff that rich people take for granted. That would make the New Deal a good deal."

The reason why FDR put taxes on minor things is because the minor things are what people use the most! No one just goes out and buys a fireplace on a day to day basis. If you put taxes on something that people buy daily, it will increase revenue quicker. FDR did this to get us out of the recession. Simple economics.

3. Con's final statement while discussing my claim about FDR's personal involvement in WWII:

"You should really say your points better. I will quote exactly what you said on this topic: "He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war." By making this statement and then saying you were going for something else, you are contradicting yourself.
It is obvious that the soldiers played a very important role in leadership, because if they hadn't been there, we couldn't even have fought in the first place. Anyone can tell that is obvious."

I really hate to say it, but we have wasted a substantial amount of time debating such an unsubstantial argument. I was simply saying that FDR was responsible for leading us into WWII. That was the extent of that comment. I wasn't trying to make some conspiracy that FDR was on the battlefield like all of soldiers were. Also, I am not disagreeing with you that the soldiers played a leadership role in the war. I'll repeat, I was saying that FDR was responsible for bringing us into WWII. I never intended to say that FDR was playing a general role or something like that in the war.

II. Conclusion.

Thank you everyone who has taken their time to read and follow this debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for the well rounded arguments. VOTE PRO:)



Sources
[1]http://digitaljournal.com...


Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by austinlaam 3 years ago
austinlaam
Now we are actually getting somewhere!
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
"Fail. Make arguments or you will undoubtedly lose this debate."

:O
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Sounds good.
Posted by austinlaam 3 years ago
austinlaam
It will go somewhere trust me. I just want more arguments to contend. I'm gathering sources and info right now:)
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
This debate is going nowhere. Austerinlaam is not responding:(
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Oh cmon, its an interesting topic for me. I am interested in WWII and I find it fun to debate. 5 isnt that much and "2 off" is a large difference, big enough at least.
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
Oh 5? 2 off...such a huge difference! If you like that debate topic is much than the max is three. Five is way too much.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Nah, iv only had like 5. Only problem is that sometimes people don't answer in some rounds. No problem with having another one of those debates man.
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
The fact is you've had like seven of the same one.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
"How many times do you need to debate this, Stalin? Chill..."
Honnestly, whats wrong with having another one of the debates we had man.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
PatriotPersonaustinlaamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cato Institute is the most biased source I have ever had the displeasure of reading, points to pro for using unbiased material. Better arguments and valid sources make pro the winner of this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
PatriotPersonaustinlaamTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources and better arguments in my opinion.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
PatriotPersonaustinlaamTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: For the most part, Austiniaam gave proof, with sources, to back up his argument. PatriotPerson didn't. Didn't see any sources.