The Instigator
clayander
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

goerge bush was a good president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 10 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 921 times Debate No: 20369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (10)

 

clayander

Pro

George Bush was one of america greatest leaders in American History he did many things
1. He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy
2. He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader
3. He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban
4. He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe
5. he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it
6. he reformed immigration with more security at the border
7. he made america more safe
8. the econmy was booming under him
9. he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air
10. he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors
16kadams

Con

This is a devils advocate.

"He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy"

During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data." [1]

So his plan didn't work.

Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. [1]

The tax policy center said these taxes didn't work.

"He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader"

The state of Iraq has done nothing in the past nine years that would in any way justify the United States in making war against it. [2]

Like serioisly what did they do to us? Thre was no WMD's or anything. Also American troops have died in that war, would you give up your kids just to get rid of one dictator? Think about it, your loved kid, or some guy you vaugly remember from sunday news.

"He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban"

And in 2005, Bush shut down the CIA’s unit dedicated to finding bin Laden in order to shift resources to Iraq. “The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” [3]

He shut down al quada by killing lower level operatives through unconitutional wars that killed US troops.


"He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe"

Work hard =/= results. I can work hard all I wan't getting F's no matter how hard I tried means I am a bad student.


"he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it"

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation. [4]

Never really tried.

"he reformed immigration with more security at the border"

But at a price:


The troops would be paid for with some of the $1.9 billion requested from Congress to supplement border enforcement this year. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said he intends to call a hearing on the National Guard deployment "at the earliest possible opportunity." [5]

That's what the National guard woudl get paid. So out 5 trillion dollar debt plus that is a downturn. So did he secure the broder no, did he help yes, did it cost money yes. So minor problem vs big money.

"he made america more safe"

So biggest terrorist attack happened diring his term =/= more safe.

Of course, 9/11 did happen eight months into Bush's term -- after he'd received a memo warning him "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." [6]

So he knew, he just was negligent to react.

"the econmy was booming under him"

Booming?

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. [7]

So one can argue the first one was clintons fault, the second may argued as clintons and bush's, but either way that statement was false.

"he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air"

Yes but it had a price:

It:
a. hurt the economy
b. had a lot of loopholes
c. didn't over ALL sources of pollution. [8]

"he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors"

IF you ook at my source social secutiry amd medicare payroll taxes vs benifits has been declinign for a while, and it did so under bush as well. SO his reforms didn't work. [9]



My arguments are liek the ones above, but I need to add 2 more:

C1: The debt

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

The graph shows an increase of debt at the very end of bush's term and a moerate increase in the midde of it.

Also increase in debt 2005-9

+2,135 billion
+7.1% of GDP [10]

It rose under his term, his buggest decrease in debt was -0.9. Fail.

C2: The wars where unconsitutional

all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticized President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional. [11]

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress. [11]

that = unconisutional

The war in Afghanistan is an unconstitutional violent costly occupation of another country who never attacked us , Alqaeda has left Afghanistan we are now pursuing the Talibans who never attacked us , whose interest do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility ??? [12]

=conclusion=

I agree with you but am doing a devils advocate. Good luck. Bus is a bad president for the reasons above. And my rebbuttals where my other argments not listed in my contentions. Vote CON!


sources:

http://politicalcorrection.org... [1]
http://www.rense.com... [2]
http://thinkprogress.org... [3]
http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4]
http://www.foxnews.com... [5]
http://mediamatters.org... [6]
http://blogs.wsj.com... [7]
http://www.businessweek.com... [8]
http://www.justfacts.com... [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [10]
http://www.albionmonitor.com... [11]
http://ronpaul1.blogspot.com... [12]
Debate Round No. 1
clayander

Pro

Let me just address the economy first for the first seven years of his presidentiay unemployment was low in may of 2007 unemployment was 4.4 percent and when he came into to office the econmy was in recession he got us out of it
and he left the defcit at 455 billion obama has grown it to 1.5 trillion bush increased the national dept by five trillion in right years obama has increased it by 4 trillion in three years and bush has the lowest dept to GDP in history.

then he also passed the most significant education reform in 40 years no child left behind he make education better for all
16kadams

Con

Just before I start leave obama out of this, we are debating bush not obama.

Refutation 1: Economy

The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy. [1]

So his last 2 years his economic policies stopped working.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said the middle class will not benefit enough from the tax cut and the wealthy will reap unfairly high benefits. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle argued that the tax cut is too large, too generous to the rich and too expensive. [1]

Also the first tax cut cost $144.5 billion [1]

And the tax cuts did little to the economy:

The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. [2]

So the economy fixed itself on it's own. Free markets have a tendency to heal themselves over time.

Refutation 2: The debt

We are debating GWB not obama. So a comparison isn't fair as obama has NOTHING to do with the resolution. I will expand this argument:

But it is high time to remind the American public of Bush's policies that caused so much of the debt we are debating
In his last term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending by 48.6 percent.
130 current members of congress voted to increase the debt limit under Bush. [3]

So a comparison isn't fair, let's stick to ONE PERSON and stay with the resolution. Adding obama is a red herring.

Refutation 3: Education

President Bush's budget would cut money for education, the second straight time he has sought less school spending after a first term of steady increases.

The Education Department would get $54.4 billion for discretionary spending in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. That would amount to a cut of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, from this year. [4]

I find it funny I am getting this from fox news...

A year ago, Bush proposed cutting the education budget by 1 percent, to $56 billion from $56.6 billion. Congress eventually approved a slight increase instead [4]

He wanted cuts first term, but congress blocked it.

Also when he called for education increases congress ignored him. Rendering him a weak leader with persuasion when it comes to Congress, a downside.

Later he ACTUALLY succeeded in cutting education:

Congress cut only five of the 48 programs Bush slated for elimination in last year's budget proposal. [5]

So he didn't get all of what he wanted, but still he succeeded in a decrease in education.

"At a time when expectations for states and school districts are at their highest under the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's investment in education is headed in the opposite direction," Jennings contended. [5]

So his first policies = good, but later he made up for it by helping cut the funds.

Conclusion:

My opponent has not refuted my main arguments and made a red herring with the usage of obama. Also I belive I have done well in this debate, VOTE PRO.




sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [2]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]
http://www.foxnews.com... [4]
http://www.stateline.org... [5]
Debate Round No. 2
clayander

Pro

again my oppeant has been trying to avoid the facts it think it is fair to mention obama but i will also acknowledge that bush did kindof let spending get out of control but i don't believe he cut education spending but the wars were sort of a waste and no child left behind was not as effective as it should be and the bush tax cuts should have been more for the middle class and the prescription drug benefit chould have been crafted better
16kadams

Con

R1: Obama

resolution =/= obama. No rules indicate a comparison. You are in a red herring.

R2: spending

My opponent just condeded my point. This argument prevails.

R3: Education

1. you provided no source to prove ANY of your point.
2. He did have like 2 sources saying he did
3. use sources

R4: tax cuts


I have proven they didn't work.


=conclusion=

My opponent has NO sources to prove his points, therefore he has only starements. He ignroes or drops many of my points from round 1. Also he only has blank statements. I have sources + logic on my side. My sources trums sentencs with no facts. So I deserve soruces. Also I have refuted his arguments, as he has tried but failed to do, I have refuted already. Also his arguments are shorter then I expected. For reasons above, and his non proven arguemnts, I urge you to vote CON! I see no reason to contitiue as I was the really the one who started refuting.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by morganhill 2 years ago
morganhill
George bush did a great job as president. People didn't like him because they didn't like his conservitive efforts of going to war. But he clearly made the correct decision
Posted by charleslb 2 years ago
charleslb
Dear, dear clayander, this is like arguing that Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest leaders in German history because:

1. He helped stabilize and stimulate the spiraling-into-hyperinflation German economy, bringing about growth that transformed a defeated and economically depressed Deutschland into a formidable world power (of course in actuality the "miraculous" German economic recovery of the Nazi era was mostly smoke & mirrors and accomplished by massive borrowing and over-the-top deficit spending).

2. He sought to free the West from the threat of a very bad man and leader named Joseph Stalin (by violating his nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, invading that nation, and racking up a death toll of twenty million Russians and five million Germans).

3. He greatly decimated all threats to the internal security of the German state (however, he did this through a system of police-state repression and concentration camps where any and all foes of his regime were liquidated).

4. He worked hard to halt the collapse of the German economy (to further the realization of his own messianic vision for his nation).

5. He improved the German social security system (of course many Jewish people and Germans killed in the war never lived to collect their social security checks).

6. He implemented a program to rid Germany of all auslanders and non-Aryans (by murdering them).

7. He made Germany safer & stronger (until he brought a catastrophic war upon it).

8. The economy appeared to be booming under him (I refer you to item #1; and to what end did he seek the economic well-being of Germany?, to make it a military power whose conquests would glorify his own name).

9. He was somewhat of an environmentalist (but then there was all that smoke that the chimneys of Auschwitz put into the air).

10. He shored up and improved the German social safety net (yeah, and he and Mussolini had the trains running on time too, whoopee!).
Posted by charleslb 2 years ago
charleslb
You see, my point above is that with enough special pleading you can make even the most villainous and vile leaders in history sound quite wonderful. But the grimly veridical experience of millions and the virtually unanimous verdict of history remains that Herr Hitler was certainly a monster, and likewise George Bush was a singularly dreadful president and this country is still suffering, economically, socially, politically, and even spiritually because of his administration's lousy & lamentable legacy of making a preferential option for the capitalist elite, of the resulting recession, of neoconservative aggression and a three trillion dollar war in Iraq to benefit corporate profiteers at the expense of thousands of lives, etc. To hype him as one of American history's best leaders is both laughable and reprehensible. Shame on you friend clayander.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
it wasn't a noob snipe politico
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
There was nothing wrong with mentioning Obama for contrast. To say Bush was a good president is to say that he was relatively good, compared to other presidents. Obama is one of those other presidents.

The appropriate response to Pro's mention of Obama would have been to point out that Obama has to spend money to recover from Bush's negligent crashing of the world economy.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
@contra

he is not my idol. Also devils advocate.
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
Wow never thought I'd see 16k going against his idol lol
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
um...why would I want to do that I am con.
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
Con should have argued that Bush was a great (or the greatest) president. All of Pro's arguments then work for him and Pro's left flailing.
Posted by cloudbox0 2 years ago
cloudbox0
bro more people hate him than like him
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
clayander16kadamsTied
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: S/G tied, both sides had several capitalization mistakes. Pro's arguments and refutations were underdeveloped = con arguments vote. Con had sources that were relevant to topic and backed up his position while pro had none = con sources vote.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
clayander16kadamsTied
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: Hmm. Con used much more sources to back his point up and went into depth with each argument pro brought up and refuted them, not to mention that he also had strong points.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
clayander16kadamsTied
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: Con was relentless in refuting Pro's arguments comprehensively and asserting his own, increasing evidence and logical structure as the debate progressed.
Vote Placed by lightskinnedblackkid 2 years ago
lightskinnedblackkid
clayander16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Aside from spelling and grammar (which neither debater was very proficient with) I would say 16kadams proved his point best.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
clayander16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Better arguments, he put more effort into it so conduct, only one who used sources.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
clayander16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Con made better arguments. Pro made claims unsupported, and didn't refute (often even agreed with) Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
clayander16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Total win by con. No question here. Enjoy con!
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
clayander16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Noob sniping season
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
clayander16kadamsTied
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: Con wins all 7 points. Pro's conduct was poor as he changed the resolution to Obama, which the resolution talks about Bush. He repeatedly shown that he does not know how to spell. Arguments is because pro was utterly refuted, whereas Con's arguments held more water. Sources are quite obvious.
Vote Placed by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
clayander16kadamsTied
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: 1. con had sources 2. pro had poor and short arguments. Seems like he didn't care 3. Con had empirical evidence proving his point. That's why con won.