The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

reagan was a bad president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,087 times Debate No: 4782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (27)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so i'm questioning the conventional wisdom that regean was such a great president.

the national debt went up substantially, starting with him, exponentially. now, we have the debt going up two million dollars a minute, and the everyone paying a fifth of their taxes to interest only, nothing really, and the average person is born with 30k in debt.
he wanted to spend less, but whatever the case, his tax cuts costed us this, given that spending less wasn't going to happen. it's a fundamental management aspect, that oftne gets lost in politics, that what you go in debt for, you're going to have to pay back later with interst.

unless he was justified to go into debt like that. there's the fact that the interests rates were so high, in the eighties, and the cold war.

is it realy true, that we can attribute the cold war to regan outspending them? people debate it. and on its face, it seems like it could be simply a caracature not based on much to rationalize the debt. that's a pretty profound claim. the presumptio should be against it, givne that it's so unprobable, albeit plausible?

couldn't they have given targeted tax cuts, or wouldn't the economy have taken care of itself? was it really needed for us to go so far into debt? it seems like the economy would have taken care of itself. so, shouldn't the presumptio be aginst his tax cuts being needed

so all in all,,, these are all ratianliations to get around his fiscal irresponsibility?
tax cuts can only do so much, right? i mean really, as a matter of good judgment beyond rhetoric?
so maybe he's only good, more for what he stood for than for what he did... and maybe a lot has to do with just imagery, a simple man with common sense taht somehow escapes eeryone else..... and despite what he did that was actually bad?

natial debt history
http://zfacts.com...

(plus, on abortion... he appoited some prolife judges, but he also appoited some prochoice too, just as many
(he was friends with sadam hussein if you remeber rumsfeld meeting with him back then etc, and gave osama his start with weopons)
CiRrO

Con

I negate: Reagan was a bad president

I will attack my opponents case then move to present my own.

Ok, my opponent's whole case is that Reagan caused the national debt that we are in today.

My Response: This argument doesn't affirm the resolution what so ever.

Reasons:

A) Debt in today's political society means nothing.

The majority of the debt we are in is because of China. However, China cannot do anything about it. They will not call the debt in (i.e. force us to pay) because if they do the following would happen:

1. Their own economy would collapse because they rely on our market more then any other market in the world. If they call in the debt then they would lose the US market which in-turn would destroy the Chinese Market.

2. Debt can only be "forced" with a backing of hard force, i.e. military action. The Chinese military wouldn't even be close to winning a war against us. They have absolutely no military prowess since they focused all their money onto building a trading empire. Also, they wouldn't go to war for reason 1 above. (They would lose their major market)

B) The Debt that's caused doesn't define what a bad and good president is.

The national debt was extremely high during Lincoln's era. And he is one of the most beloved US presidents. Most would say he was a good president.

Moving to my own case:

Contention I: President Reagan's economic policies stimulated the economy.

A) Created 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.

B) We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan's tax reforms. Investing in the market tripled in his presidency.

C) The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.

D) Established the longest peacetime prosperity in the nation's history.

Contention II: End of the Cold War

A direct reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was the economic suffering felt by the USSR and its people because their government overspent on developing new technology to keep up with the US and the strengthened free market under Reagan. Reagan's economic policies were a reason that the scariest time in American History was ended.

--> Link as rebuttal to opponent: My opponent says this is bad because it created more of a debt. I doubt the people at the time cared about the debt when there was a threat of a nuclear attack.

For these reasons I negate.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

A) The majority of the debt we are in is because of China.

If I borrow from a bank, that doesn't mean the debt is "because" of the bank, so much as because I choose to accept the money. China is essentially our bank. Your arguments about China's fear of cashing in on the debt, is really non sequiter, as it has nothing to do with the fact that we borrowed the money from them in the first place.

B) The Debt that's caused doesn't define what a bad and good president is.
The national debt was extremely high during Lincoln's era.

Perhaps he should be criticized for his debt too, that doesn't mean Reagan should get off too.
Plus, Lincoln had other things goig for him.... and if your argument ist that Reagan had other things goig for him, then it was non sequiter to argue that Lincoln had high debt as an argument in iself as you did, instead of the other things he had going for him.

Contention I: President Reagan's economic policies stimulated the economy.

If I borrow money, and because of that reason my business increases, which is analogous to the gov and economy, that doesn't deflect the fact taht now I am going to have to pay it all back with interest.
The economy largely takes care of itself, capitialism works generally, and only needs a little push here and there by interest rate manipulation for optimality. So i'll accept the premise that Reagan was responsbility for some of it, but most of it is questionable, given the ecnomy takes care of itself.

A little borrowing might not have been bad either... but look at that graph I gave you, and see how exponentially the debt acculated. If I borrowed a crap ton of money, and have a little activity to show for it, and am still paying for it twenty years later, as we are with his exponential debt, then that little activity is not good when it happened, given the total costs.

If the economy will take care of itself mostly, we're esstnailly getting a ton of interest for nothing. Even if we assume that the principal does good things for us, the interest exceeds the principal, and we're in over our heads, at the rate of borrowing Reagan did.

This is essentially, a matter of finding the right poit of cuts and such, a loffer or bell curve.... but look at how much was borrowed, and consider how little there was to show for it, if most can even be attributed to the cuts. The degree of debt is what is important here.
It's not bad judgment to think a modest degree of tax cuts are okay sometimes in some situations, . It's bad judgment to think without mroe than you've given that the degree of borrowing that occurred is wise.
you can yell overand over the good stats you show, bt for it to be good judgment, you have to show how that justifies the enormity of trillions in debt we were are and will continue to pay for it.

Contention II: End of the Cold War
"A direct reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was the economic suffering felt by the USSR and its people because their government overspent on developing new technology to keep up with the US and the strengthened free market under Reagan. "

This is an unfounded claim. Everyone knows communism doesn't work well, simply because of its own dynamic, and everone knows the russians were having infighting and debts despite paying for their weopons. To think, that their weopons debt made the whole country collapse is sensational, simplistic thinking. If their country were otherwise okay, they could have survived something as measely as borrowing for weopns,,,, that their country couldn't do something so simple, shows that their structure was altogether bad to ebgin with, and bound to fail anyway.
At any rate, the burden is on the person saying something so extreme to prove their point. the presumption shuld be taht what you sad is merely rhetoric, espeically as you've given no facts.
CiRrO

Con

My opponent still believes that the debt is the reason Reagan was a bad President.

"If I borrow from a bank, that doesn't mean the debt is "because" of the bank, so much as because I choose to accept the money. China is essentially our bank. Your arguments about China's fear of cashing in on the debt, is really non sequiter, as it has nothing to do with the fact that we borrowed the money from them in the first place."

My Response: My point is that we don't need to return it. The national debt in today's society really has no effects. There would be no ramifications if we didn't pay it off. That's my point. We don't need to give it back.

"Perhaps he should be criticized for his debt too, that doesn't mean Reagan should get off too.
Plus, Lincoln had other things goig for him.... and if your argument ist that Reagan had other things goig for him, then it was non sequiter to argue that Lincoln had high debt as an argument in iself as you did, instead of the other things he had going for him."

My Response: Ok the, let's label all presidents as bad that had high national debt. Or even better, any president that had debt at all should be considered bad. Essentially, national debt does not make a bad president. Thus, it doesn't affirm the resolution. It's non-unique. A president is not bad or good based on national debt.

"If I borrow money, and because of that reason my business increases, which is analogous to the gov and economy, that doesn't deflect the fact taht now I am going to have to pay it all back with interest.
The economy largely takes care of itself, capitialism works generally, and only needs a little push here and there by interest rate manipulation for optimality. So i'll accept the premise that Reagan was responsbility for some of it, but most of it is questionable, given the ecnomy takes care of itself."

My Response: That's exactly it. Reagan gave the push it needed from the failures of the Carter Administration. If Reagan did nothing, then he would be a bad president. However, he did do something, which saved the economy from virtual collapse.

You can extend my contention I, and all its sub-points. They have gone unrefuted.

"This is an unfounded claim. Everyone knows communism doesn't work well, simply because of its own dynamic, and everone knows the russians were having infighting and debts despite paying for their weopons. To think, that their weopons debt made the whole country collapse is sensational, simplistic thinking. If their country were otherwise okay, they could have survived something as measely as borrowing for weopns,,,, that their country couldn't do something so simple, shows that their structure was altogether bad to ebgin with, and bound to fail anyway.
At any rate, the burden is on the person saying something so extreme to prove their point. the presumption shuld be taht what you sad is merely rhetoric, espeically as you've given no facts."

My Response: I'm using logic.

Syllogism

1. Reagan forced the USSR into a arms race
2. An arms race costs lots of money
3. The USSR had a horrible economy
4. The USSR spent what was left of its money on developing weapons
5. This arms race caused the economy of the USSR to collapse
6. Therefore, Regan (who forced them into an arms race) was the indirect reason for the collapse of the soviet economy, and thus the state in general.

This is a clear negative vote.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"My point is that we don't need to return it. The national debt in today's society really has no effects. There would be no ramifications if we didn't pay it off. That's my point. We don't need to give it back."

First, if that's your response, you should have said so to begin with.

Second,,, you don't say.... "let's just run up debt and not worry about it". You might not feel it, but it's there. To make it more concrete, think about the idea that you could just sit on your butt and do nothing, for a fifth of the time you'd other wise be working. That fifth, representgs interest, mere interest, that you have to pay on the debt.
Furthermore, what's being paid on mere interest, is not going to other things that are important to society. We're actually hurting the economy by something so large not going to the economy at large.
ie, to spell it out better for you.... we may have helped the country a little in teh short term, but given the interest, there's no escaping that we're hurting it in the long term.
You're overlooking basic common sense fiscal management, for the sake of politics.

"Reagan gave the push it needed from the failures of the Carter Administration. If Reagan did nothing, then he would be a bad president. However, he did do something, which saved the economy from virtual collapse."

Paying trillions of dollars then, now, and in the future, is not just a mere push as you're insinuating. It's trillions in debt. SOme of it helped the economy, but given the blanket nature of tax cutes, most probably didn't.
He could have gave targeted tax cuts, he could have gave smaller tax cuts. He could have manipulated the interest rates, or let the financial sector of government do it, as they do.

The economy would have taken care of itself, and he had many alternatives to doing nothing, other than making trillions then, now, and in the future.

I don't think you understand.... thousands of dollars, that you have to pay, that I have to pay, extrapolated as interests rates do.
Think about the concrete example of sitting on your butt, and the thousdans you could otherwise have if you don't grasp it. I'tsn ot just numbers.

The arguments you gave "he had to do something" are not enough to justify the extent, the huge extent, of the debt.

"My Response: I'm using logic.
5. This arms race caused the economy of the USSR to collapse"

You're using a syllogism, but that doesn't mean you're being logical, as you're missing many fundamental premises, and thus you're reaching faulty conclusions.

you didn't even respond to what I said, and so are illogical. I said prove that it caused the collapse. Simply saying that it costs money, and then showing that they collapsed, does not prove that the spending caused the collapse.
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
(ie, i could just as easily argue, that their infighting and other debts caused the collapse, and the US competition was meager. and then say... what? it's a logical statement, as you're simply asserting)
The presumption should be that the spending didn't cause the collapse, givne that merely helping it collapse, at best, isn't necessarily signfiicant, and given that their fall was inevitable.
ie, if there was already fighting going on, and other debts, why would we attribute the collapse to spending on weopons?
ie, even if your point were true, that it was the last straw,,,, that means their country must have been very weak to begin with, if something so measley would cause it to collapse. ie, it was bound to fail anyway. their failure was inevitable despite us.
ie, Giving your children trillions in debt... for at best... for being a catalyst to something so inevitable is not wise.

So.
Prove the causation with data and not just rhetoric
Or, at least... argue why the presumption should be as you say, that we caused their collapse. especially in this vein, address the inevitability factor

Your response is counter intuitive, and Reagan is the one who footed the bill so he has to justify it,,,, so the burden is on you.

(It wasn't all military debt, anyways. Military debt is merely teh scapegoat, but a bad one at that. )

this is clearly a pro vote.
CiRrO

Con

My opponent keeps on repeating herself.

National debt is bad. It would collapse the economy.

However she still misses my point. Even if the interest gets larger and larger, we don't have to pay it, for the reasons I gave in the first round.

Next, in this whole debate she never warrants why increasing the national debt makes a president bad. She is saying that any president with high national debt was bad. Like Lincoln and FDR. She says we should criticize them for it, but she doesn't say they were bad. So essentially, her main argument doesn't make a president bad. You can drop her whole case. It is non-unique.

She then goes on to say that he didn't really help it. Extend all the reasons I gave why Reagan's economic plan helped.

She then argues that my syllogism is faulty. My syllogism explains how indirectly Reagan was responsible. I say however, she has not proved that he didn't. My opponent's whole round has been circular arguments.

Voting Issues:

1) She has yet to explain how a national debt makes a president bad. Since she has not she has not affirmed the resolution on a topical basis.

2) Extend my whole point about Reaganomics and how they helped the economy.

3) She has not disproved that Reagan did not help to end the Cold War.

For these reason I urge a negation.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by gabriel8a2002 6 years ago
gabriel8a2002
Here is one thing for sure. We can certainly blame the war on drugs to Ronald Reagan. His "just say no" program does not work. There is no way that we can get everyone to agree "not to take drugs" just because they are harmful. So his drug prohibition does not work. It only gives the business to the criminal underworld, and so far, there are enough drug users and abusers in the United States that they kill each other just to control a region of drug smuggling (i live in the border, and the last gun battle was horrible!).

His Reaganomics suck. Reagan is a neoliberal capitalist. Neoliberal capitalism causes the rich to be very rich (Gates) and the poor to be extemely poor, while the middle class is always taxed greatly. In otherwords Take very little form the guy on the top, take evything from the guy in the middle, and take everything the poor man has. That is why it is so hard to get rich legally in the United States.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
75% of the US's debt is domestically owned, and only about 8% is owned by china. It's not that big of a deal.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Ahhhh...and the reagan haters show up in force. What was in the Pro's argument that was persuasive enough to deserve a vote is beyond me.

Complete and utter failure at proving her point.

I can point to any administration and find something bad that happened during that period. This still does not make the acting president "bad".
Posted by dark_faery_gyrl 8 years ago
dark_faery_gyrl
economies and taxes are only a small portion of what makes a good or bad president. As CiRro said, the national debt does not in and of itself make a bad president, PRO clearly failed to show that one necessarily must mean the other. Further she takes a commonly held belief as to the causation of the collapse of the Soviet Union and just implies that it is not valid, without ever showing any of the hard data that would support her case (that communism will always fail anyway)

CON could have questioned a bit more about proof that communism doesn't work instead of just allowing the statement that 'everyone knows communism doesn't work.' Well lets look at China. Sometimes it does work, at least long enough to make the nation pretty darn competitive.

Further, it does not take much to meet the "prove it" demand. http://findarticles.com.... I typed, "USSR collapse + Reagan + causes into Google, it was the forth thing down, and the first that was a reliable source. He did do a great job of listing some of the positive things Reagan did in his time in office though.

All in all, since Pro's case revolved entirely around the premise that high spending automatically means bad president, but she failed to prove this premise I vote CON.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
this seems to be the debate so far:

"i doubt whether reagan's tax cuts are attributable to what people say. while high costs might have contributed to the soviet collapse, it doesn't seem probable that it substantially contributed, more like a rhetocial rationalization"

"you should believe it, cause it's true. high costs translates into a the collapse of their country"

"how do you know?"

"high costs translates into a the collapse of their country"

"you're just repeating yourself. why'd you take this debate if you're just going to state what i already knew what the rhetorical response?"
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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 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: Counter VB-ing Mr. Anon.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 5 years ago
johnnyboy54
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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: Pro looked way too narrowly when looking at the economy and debt. Pro also failed to look at how Reagan's policies decreased unemployment and reduced inflation. Reagan was not perfect, however con looked at the whole picture, especially regarding the foreign and domestic policy. A clear win for con.
Vote Placed by Mr_Anon 5 years ago
Mr_Anon
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bombing quarterexchange.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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: This is a counter bomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I dobut regans tax cuts created every jobs that was created in the 80's and he expanded the debt during high inflation
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by gabriel8a2002 6 years ago
gabriel8a2002
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31