RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

We have now come to the concluding argument of this debate. In order to keep things simple, I will deal with this in something of a reverse order. 1. My opponent has claimed that G. W. Bush is America's best president. His claim was not put on the basis (as is clear from the entire debate thus far) that Bush is America's best president because Bush is currently America's only president. Thus, to prove his Resolution, Pro would need to prove that Bush is a better president than all the presidents before him. To assist my opponent in this task, I have provided in R4 the names of all past presidents. My opponent has declined to addressed this issue specifically and seeks to address it in general terms. He does this by posting the following statement: "Every single President you have listed is inferior to Bush because Bush has taken our country and made it into a world power. Answer this, If Bush is the current president, and has been for the past 7 years, and our county is currently in a state of superiority unachievable by any of the listed Presidents because of time period restraints, then Why would he NOT be responsible? " My opponent contends that Bush "made America into a world power". He has provided no evidence for this, even though he has been on notice that this point, if made, would be in dispute (see my R1, point 3). I concede that the USA is a world power. However, the USA was a world power for many many years before G. W. Bush's presidency. He did not make the USA into a world power. As for the second part of my opponent's contention, he has failed to provide any evidence for the proposition put. He states that the USA is in a state of superiority unachievable by any of the listed presidents. He has not drawn any comparisons between the USA and any other country in order to show the alleged superiority. Furthemore, he has drawn no comparisons between the USA's "superiority" now and that before Mr Bush became president. He has not addressed, in any way, my contentions (supported by statistical evidence of the US Census) showing that the prosperity and well-being of Americans has in fact declined since Mr Bush has been President. I further contend that my opponent's use of the term "unachievable by any of the listed Presidents because of time constraints" in itself defeats my opponent's argument. What he is saying here is that no other President could achieve what Bush allegedly has. In other words it was impossible for any other President to achieve it. The quality of one's performance as President can only be measured in light of what (s)he has done within the realm of what is possible. Even had my opponent done the above (proven the point regarding "superiority") and if that point were not in itself contradictory to his argument, this would still not prove that G. W. Bush is America's best president. As stated above, such proof can only be reached by comparing him with previous presidents. My opponent has himself chosen the criteria by which Presidents are to be judged in this debate. Thus, he would need to prove EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: 1) a)Mr Bush has never faulted in his existence . I say he failed on this as I have rebutted it. b) Mr Bush was the ONLY president to never fault in his existence. I say he failed on this one as he provided no evidence or argument at all regarding any other president. 2) a)Mr Bush is leading the USA into an unimaginable prosperity. I say my opponent has failed to prove his point. In particular, see my R1 and statistical data about the well-being and prosperity of Americans during Bush's presidency. b) No other president has lead the USA into unimaginable prosperity. My opponent failed on this as he provided no evidence or argument to support it. 3) a) Mr Bush defines benevolence. My opponent failed to prove this point as he provided no argument or evidence to support it. b) No other president has defined benevolence. My opponent failed to prove this point as he provided no argument or evidence to support it. Therefore, it is my contention that my opponent has failed to prove his resolution. I therefore ask that you vote Con. ******************************* Other matters (addressing my opponent's R5). 1. My issue with 9/11 was not directed at Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (although I am not suggesting that I support the said invasion). It was directed at the fact that the administration did nothing to try and prevent 9/11. My opponent did nothing to refute this. Even if he had, the only relevance of this was (for my argument, anyway) the spike in Bush's ratings. 2. Bush himself conceded that there was no evidence that Iraq housed terrorists at the time. Secondly, there is no evidence of Iraq having had WMD. The fact that Iraq may have had them and hid them away does nothing to support my opponent's argument. Additionally, I never once suggested that I do not like war. For all my opponent knows, I might be a warmonger in the truest sense of the word. However, the point is moot. Finally, the only relevance of my point regarding Iraq was that this was another spike in Bush's ratings. 3. My opponent has failed to show any evidence of the USA being the "most popular country". I would take issue with this statement, if it were relevant to the debate. However, I contend that it is not. 4. Of course 9/11 was a conspiracy. A number of Al Qaeda terrorists conspired together to attack Americans on their own soil. And they succeeded. I fail to see how my opponent concludes that this belief should make all my points null. As for the second part of my opponent's point, Bush himself has conceded that there was absolutely no link between Iraq and 9/11. 5. Anarchy is the absence of a government. Democracy ("rule of the people" - Greek) is a government that is composed of members elected by the people. Direct democracy, by contrast, is a government where all decisions are made by popular vote and then carried out by the government (Executive). 6. I have asked my opponent to substantiate his claim that the polls are biased and Bush is loved. No evidence has come forth. 7. My opponent appears to know something about Hippies that I do not. However, this point in my opponent's argument proves nothing. 8. My opponent is most welcome. 9. I am not insinuating anything. I asked my opponent to substantiate his claim. He has not done so. 10. If my opponent takes issue with the methodology employed in public opinion polls, he should have discussed the said methodology in an attempt to prove its invalidity. He has not done so, although put on notice (see my R4).