George W. Bush was a bad president.

AnalysisContinuing the debate structure that my opponent skewed in round 2, he is just now introducing his value criterion of a consequentialist approach to this debate.As I stated last round, he implicitly conceded the values of peace, prosperity, and freedom, because he did not provide a metric for judging Bush’s presidency. But, he fortified this with, “Since I did not respond to the implied framework directly, I thought it would be obvious that I conceded to the framework.” Therefore, my opponent is arguing that Bush upheld peace, prosperity, and freedom. This is critical flaw in my opponent’s case.My opponent concedes that Bush started a war of aggression, that he was largely responsible for the Great Recession, and that he took away our freedoms. His contentions only attempt to make those things seem reasonable through his new consequentialist framework. Example: in response to my argument “Set the stage for the Great Recession” his turn was “Recession good.” Causing the recession due to monetary and fiscal policy is contrary to prosperity, the value that my opponent and I are upholding; thus, this argument goes to Pro as well as the peace and freedom arguments. Tacitly conceding that Bush’s policies infringed on and run contrary to the three highest values in this debate makes the arguments flow to the Pro side irrespective of my opponent’s newly established consequentialist framework. Please look back at his initial arguments to further confirm this fact. SourcesMy opponent makes the laughably absurd point that a debate case comprised solely of others’ work is preferable to thinking out one’s own arguments and sourcing them with facts for support. Further, I never said my opponent was plagiarizing, his copy+paste style just indicates a lack of mental rigor and rhetorical skill.IraqAs I’ve been stating during this debate, read his contentions through the mutually agreed upon value framework of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The unjustified war of aggression in Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and the evidence I presented demonstrates that it increases terrorism (poorly scored on peace), has cost over $3t dollars (poorly scored on prosperity), and we we’re conned into accepting it through a total of 900 statements that Bush prevaricated (negatively scored on freedom).My opponent didn’t tie his argument to the resolution, because he copy + pasted from a source arguing for the war in Iraq, so naturally he forgot to tie it into Bush’s presidency. He is now claiming it is obvious that murdering 122,000 innocent civilians is better than an estimated number of deaths that could’ve happened. Pure fatuity. Furthermore, playing policeman around the world at the cost of trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, increasing terrorism, and decreasing personal freedom is contrary to the values we both are upholding.RecessionAs I previously stated, my opponent concedes that Bush played a large role in the development of bubbles which led to the Great Recession and the further economic intervention that led to (using his consequentialist framework). As I stated, “After not learning a lesson from the minor recession early in his term, Bush pursued more economic intervention, stimulus, government committees, and bad monetary policy the second time around.” He concedes the recession was bad and Bush largely created it. This infringes on prosperity, and the argument goes to Pro.Under the recession argument in round 2, my opponent included Romney and Iran, which is irrelevant because the issue of the recession is prosperity and loss of economic freedom, not Iran getting nukes in the future. My opponent is trying to take something that has no direct correlation to Bush’s intentions and mishandlings of the economy. Also, bringing in Obama is irrelevant. We are debating the Bush presidency. I hope my opponent can refocus his arguments in this last round. Free TradeAs I stated, “Managed trade is not free trade.” An increase in trade is an anarchic, economic function and government policy can only harm it. The managed trade is including tariff rates and other management controls on international trade, so the increase in trade was in spite of Bush’s protectionism, not because of it. ConstitutionJudges, please reread my opponent’s round 2 Mansfield analysis, attempt to understand how it means the President can usurp personal freedoms, and try to link it to my argument that Bush curtailed freedom. It doesn’t apply, so it’s irrelevant. A strong executive =/= the right of the executive to usurp freedoms for long periods of time. ConclusionMy opponent drops several of my arguments, directly and implicitly violates the agreed upon values of peace, prosperity, and freedom, and cannot win this debate based upon how his arguments interact with them. Thank you.