George W. Bush was a bad president.

“The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy. ” – Nietzsche Framework and Analysis Since I did not respond to the implied framework directly, I thought it would be obvious that I conceded to the framework. However, seeing as he is probing for more analysis I will provide an explication on the framework. He provides three criteria: peace, prosperity and freedom. The way to evaluate this round is through a consequentialist framework; evaluating the end results of a government policy. The implication of this framework on voting then becomes weighing who on balance has promoted the best ends. The issue with this however is that ends can conflict, which means priority must be given to the end results. Thus, the weighing mechanism is life-magnitude. In other words has a government policy best protected the most life possible within given competing alternatives? Life outweighs all other competing claims because life is a prerequisite to other ends, such as quality of life. And, his analysis is an equal consideration calculus: “…judged based on how his policies affected the nation and the world…” Sources My opponent argues that I am border-line plagiarizing (which is untrue since I sourced everything), however methodological turn (source vote): prefer the direct quotation method as opposed to the paraphrasing method. The direct quote method is preferable because it prevents manipulation of the evidence and gives the most direct author indicated argument possible. Paraphrasing has the bad effect of users debating off-site where one simply has to paraphrase a premise. C1: Iraq Democide My opponent argues that the U. S. had to commit democide, to prevent it which violates almost all ethics systems. Seeing as though your framework is implied consequentialism since the vast majority of your analysis appeals to end results such as death, then it would make sense that the means do justify the ends. If I can demonstrate that more people have been saved from democide than the number killed in the prevention, then I outweigh on strength of link to saving more lives. My opponent provides a stat ranging from 600,000 to 1M, however he never provided a source so that number is moot and since no new evidence is allowed in the last round its moot for the entire round. But even assuming that’s true, the lives saved in the long run would by necessity outweigh whatever static number you believe has been the death toll in Iraq. He says I haven’t tied my argument to the resolution…. It should be clear that Bush is a good president because he saved an uncalcuable amount of people from democide. And refer to my previous analysis which goes unresponded to: the war has prevented continuous amounts of genocide going to the future. So when asking the question: is it better to have democracy than Saddam? Yes. War My opponent really never makes a substantive response to my argument and simply asserts that: 1) the argument has no link to Bush and 2) the war was based on lies. First, extend the conceded analysis that by taking out Saddam another disastrous war with Iran has been avoided. This is true because the Iraqi government has deep political and ideological ties with Tehran. Remember, between the elastic amount of people saved by preventing democide and preventing a war with Iran means that Bush has really saved well over 1 million people in Iraq and Iran. Second, clearly it has a link to Bush because Iraq was Bush’s policy. My turn indicates that your indictment of Iraq is not only false but actually proves that Iraq is a reason why Bush was a good president, due to the amount of lives saved in the long-run. Third, as mentioned previously, lies don’t matter when applied to a consequentialist analysis. Remember, his framework uses words such as “well-being” which implies a consequential calculus. Middle East Instability As great as my opponent’s analysis is about terrorism, it is a moot and irrelevant point when applied to the Certon analysis. Certon doesn’t tell us that terrorism decreases, which is what my opponent’s study is indicting, but rather instability reallocates the increased amount of terrorism elsewhere. Remember, the evidence indicates two main points, which have gone substantively unrefuted: 1) terrorist organizations are put on the defensive and not the offensive. In periods of stability, terrorist groups are able to go on the offensive and bring the force of their cells to the U. S. homeland. In times of instability terrorist organizations must focus their attention on fighting in their own backyard like Iraq. 2) Promoters of terror cells, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, must focus their attention to the battleground of Iraq which means those terror cells are locked in an ideological battle over the future of Iran. This means those terror cells are fighting there, and not say hijacking our planes over the U. S. . As great as the analysis provided by my opponent is, it does not actually respond to the Certon claims. Thus, we can conclude from a strategic standpoint Bush was a good president because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make terrorism against the actual U. S. homeland very hard to perpetrate since all focus of recruitment and capital were to fighting in Iraq. C2: Politics Advantage Recession Good His intuitionist impact analysis will never outweigh the politics DA. I think my opponent has misunderstood my argument, since he calls my rantings bizarre. This is a politics advantage which demonstrates that the “bad” of the 2008 recession is outweighed by the positive political effects which have been derived from the recession. Obama Can’t Win My opponent argues that FDR won election with a bad economy, however I’m sure my opponent is aware that, if he took any American History class, that most people back then and now don’t understand that the New Deal was a bad economic policy. The people thought that quick intervention would help solve. However, my opponent never directly addresses the argument by Morris which is known as the incumbent rule, so it can go extended. Refer to previous round for analysis. Romney will strike Iran/Iran Nuke Bad My opponent says these arguments are irrelevant, however as mentioned above I think he is confused as to the structure of this argument. The argument is that when Romney wins he will strike Iran militarily to prevent nukes, and that’s a good thing. The bad economy will lead independents and undecideds to flock to Romney, as indicated by the incumbent rule. As such, the recession was a good thing cause Romney will win and prevent Iran from getting nukes. We know Iran getting nukes is a bad thing, which my opponent has not contested, because the organization which is bent on attacking the U. S. and has admitted to wanting to use a nuclear weapon if they had one, now has a sanctuary in Iran. Poorly protected nuclear sites, regime destabilization with the Green movement, instable regime factions, all make the possibility of nuclear theft highly likely. But he never contents these issues. C3: Free Trade Managed trade is not completely full trade, but its better than the alternative of not having free trade agreements. Moreover, the 13 FTA’s outweigh the steel issue since steel is one industry and FTA’s encompass lots of industries. C4: Constitution He effectively drops the Mansfield analysis because he was unsure how to refute it, which demonstrates that Bush was acting well within his right as President. *On the conduct vote: 1) I let him restart this debate after he FF'ed so I should have some lee-way. 2) Even if he might not think its my own case I did run turns which effectively makes his case my own case and also I ran a politics advantage which is 90% of my own construction, except the link to the 2008 recession.