The Instigator
clayander
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

goerge bush was a good 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 4 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 23567
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

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 and guest worker program
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 with a prescription drug benefit
11. he passed the largest education reform act the no child left behind act
socialpinko

Con

I see many problems in the Pro case. Besides the problems with my opponent's individual points in favor of the resolution, it seems that my opponent has failed to provide a definition of what makes a good President. Surely there are varying definitions and opinions on what makes one. Ron Paul would say a good President is one that follows the Constitution and the "law of the land" while perhaps Mitt Romney would say a good President is one who allows for strong defense and economy. To simplify things though and drawing on what I may assume my opponent means by good President we may define one as simply a President who allows for a strong economy, maintains national defense, acts Constitutionally, and recognizes basic human rights. I don't think this will be much of an issue though as most of my opponent's points are flawed in and of themselves.


===Arguments===


1. My opponent failed both to specify what he means by tax relief and source what specific policies it was that Mr. Bush passed that would count as "tax relief". My opponent has also failed to show why and how this set of "huge job growth". However, seeing as we have four more rounds to debate, I will ask that my opponent clarify in the next round in order for me to better refute this point.


2. My opponent brings up a good point. If a President is to uphold basic human rights than surely that makes a good case not to stand for the violation of human rights abroad. However, it would seem that even if we grant that it is the responsibility for the U.S. to police the world (which is a dubious position anyways) Mr. Bush was acting inconsistently in deciding that the Iraqi people deserved to be free of their oppressive dictator while totally ignoring not only the massive human rights abuses going on in Sudan[1] and Darfur[2][3], but also positively supporting or at the very least in no way resisting the abusive totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia[4]. If Mr. Bush was so against "bad" leaders across the globe, surely we must add inconsistency to his Presidential track record.


3. On Al Queda and the Taliban, one must realize that the largest attack by Al Queda on U.S. soil (the September 11th attacks) occurred under the watch of President Bush. This is not to say that he had any active participation in coordinating the affair, only that if the attack had occurred under Democratic control of the White House, surely there would be a bit more attention paid to Bush's bona fides regarding protecting the U.S. from Al Queda and the Taliban.


4. On economic collapse, one must look to the actual causes of said collapse if one is to properly decide whether or not Bush did enough or even tried to stop it from occurring. Austrian economic theory posits that business cycles (periods of economic boom followed by economic recession or depression) are caused by the practices of some central banking system. In the case of the U.S. that system is the Federal Reserve. When the Fed artificially expands the credit supply as it did, it distorts the necessary signals that investors look to when deciding whether to invest or not invest.

When credit is artificially expanded, it sends a signal that the amount of funds saved by actors in the economy which may be invested has increased. This is because the Fed lowers the interest rates and creates more money for investment when consumers in the economy haven't actually saved up more funds. When this happens, entrepreneurs are in short tricked into investing in longer systems of investment (mostly in capital goods instead of consumer goods). They are tricked into believing that the revenue made from these capital goods will be enough to cover their interest and repayment. However, since consumers have not actually increased their savings for investment, all this does is breed malinvestment on the parts of entrepreneurs and lead to a necessary bust when the economy inevitably corrects itself.[5][6] President Bush from what I can find never believed this, nor did he ever speak out against the Fed's recession creating policies.


5. It is true that Mr. Bush did in fact attempt to reform Social Security in order to make it more sustainable. However, trying just doesn't cut it and as we all know Mr. Bush failed in his attempt. Barack Obama may try to end the recession and President Bush may have tried to reform Social Security but in the end they both failed an so their attempts may not add to whether or not they were great Presidents.


6. My opponent has also failed to source what specific policy proposals Mr. Bush made on the Mexican-American border and the influx of illegal immigrants and which proposals actually made it though. My opponent has also failed to show why more security at the border is the correct solution to the "immigration problem", a question which is all but solved.


7. No warrant provided for this statement. My opponent has provided no reason to believe that America is more safe now than before Mr. Bush took office. After all, the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor (technically it was only a colony at that point but whatever) happened under Bush's watch. One could also argue that Bush's legacy, the Patriot Act, made Americans much more unsafe than acts by the Taliban as Americans have in many many cases been not only illegally detained but also illegally tortured by their own government on mere suspicion of terrorist involvement.


8. Refer to point 4. The "booming" economy under Bush was actually an unsustainable boom which contributed to the current economic recession which we now find ourselves plagued under.


9. The Clean Air Act was not passed under Bush's watch. It was passed in 1963 with amendments passed in '67, '70, '77, and '90[7]. President Bush in no way either introduced or reinforced the law.


10. Unlike the Clean Air Act, it actually is true that Mr. Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. However, the act was not introduced by Bush, nor was it by his work entirely that it was passed in Congress. Remember that it had to go through both the House of Representatives and the Senate before coming to the President's desk. Surely if the act was truly a good policy, the credit should lie with he who introduced the act, Dennis Hastert (R), and those who argued for it as opposed with Mr. Bush who simply signed it after the actually debate and fighting was already over.


11. Unlike the previous act, it is actually true that Mr. Bush's administration originated the policy of No Child, Left Behind. However, my opponent had failed to provide warrant on the acts positive effects on education in the U.S. Seeing as we have another four rounds of debate though, like P1 I implore my opponent to expand on this argument in the next round.

===Sources===

[1] http://www.sudantribune.com...
[2] http://www.darfurscores.org...
[3] http://www.blackpast.org...
[4] http://www.amnestyusa.org...
[5] http://mises.org...
[6] http://mises.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
clayander

Pro

clayander forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 2
clayander

Pro

clayander forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. I just realized my opponent mispelled George in the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
clayander

Pro

clayander forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Did you know George Bush appointed the first African-America woman to a senior role in the Executive cabinet in American history? *The more you know*
Debate Round No. 4
clayander

Pro

clayander forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Please extend arguments and refutations yet again. It is unfortunate that my opponent was unable to rebut my points. As such I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
And I love how people swoop in to vote on massive forfeit debates of mine but one that I actually spent a lot of time working on barely gets a vote.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Zaradi, it wasn't that much text. The guy just brought 11 points to the debate. Each had to be refuted in order to negate the resolution. Blame the guy who made each of his points a single sentence long.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
My first non-philosophical battle of wits in about two months.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Careful guys, he might FF every round like he did last time
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
clayandersocialpinkoTied
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: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
clayandersocialpinkoTied
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: llluuuuuuuuuuulllllllllllllllzzzzzzzzz
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
clayandersocialpinkoTied
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: And another debate shot down by a massive wall of text. Nicely done spinko.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
clayandersocialpinkoTied
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: FF"S