Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

My RefutationsPresident ReaganI. Economic Policy"My opponent counter refutes my point about supply-side economics being a failure by only talking about Clinton. Okay, yes, I mentioned Clinton, but you are getting totally off topic. Also, just because Clinton gave a tax cut doesn't mean he supports supply-side economics, the Laffer curve, the trickle down theory, whatever you want to call it."If I may take you all back to round two, Con stated that:"Reagan's ideas of supply-side economics were inferior to the economics presented by Clinton and Obama's tax increases on the rich. [1]"My opponent then shows a quote that talks about only the 1993 tax increase compared to the tax cuts of the 1980s and 2000s. This is a direct source talking about the Clinton economic policy in his early years as president and the economic growth at the time. Con was in other words trying to prove that supply-side economics was a failure by providing a source explaining that growth was better in the Clinton years because of his tax increase. I responded by showing the CATO study that shows economic growth during both periods and Clinton's tax cuts along with NAFTA. I did this to defend supply-side economics. [1,2]"My opponent then defends Reagan by saying that him raising unemployment was not his fault. He provides no source or reason, and that counter rebuttal is completely contradictory to all of his points, where he cites no reason it was Reagan's sucess and not his administrations. My opponent is saying that when his administration does good things, it is because of Ronald Reagan, but when they do bad things it is because of the adminstration?"My opponent seems confused here. It was not President Reagan's or his administration's fault unemployment went up. It is common economic sense that any recession reaches a certain peak before a recovery can begin. In the case of President Reagan that peak was just before 1983. It is also important to know that the tax cut signed in 1981 did not come into full effect until 1983. The recovery took steam in 1983, but like I said, it was beyond President Reagan's control since the tax cut did not come into full effect until 1983. [3]"My opponent also says that Apple lost stock recently, however this is completely irrelevant to our debate. Apple lost stock because of the death of Steve Jobs, the failure of Apple Maps, etc."Steve Jobs died in 2011. Were two years past it now. There's a new leader of Apple. To say Apple is irrelevant is incorrect, as it provides a key example of how succesful a company is doing during both presidencies. Further my, opponent provides no sources for both his examples. I did provide a source showing the current stocks. This fall is most notably occuring during the BO presidency and its foolish to say his policies have no effect on businesses.II. Cold War and Other Foreign Policy"As to foreign policy, my opponent completes skirts my refutation on how it was not Reagan that stopped the cold war. All he does is reinforce his own point."The only thing my opponent did was provide a quote from his second source in round 2. This quote is not even specific while mine was in three factors. My opponent's argument was unreliable and did not justify whatever point he is trying to prove."My opponent says that it is common sense that Reagan didn't do anything wrong with the Iran Contra affair. If your ideaof common sense is giving money attained by selling guns to drug dealers in Nicaragua (high treason) and then its not your fault, then please explain common sense to me by your definition."Remember, the only source my opponent gave was the TV cartoon "American Dad". What does the actual commission say on the matter? The Tower Commission stated that President Reagan did nothing wrong because he knew nothing about the affair. My opponent's source is "American Dad" and my source is the Tower Commission, so viewers, who are you going to believe? [4]BOI. Economic Policy"I encourage you to look at these two wikipedia articles. One is on the depression before Reagan took office, and the other for Obama. Which seems worse to you?"Let's see what wikipedia has to say about the 1980s recession and the 2008 recession: "Concerning unemployment, during the 1980–1982 recession, unemployment peaked at nearly 11% (10.8%) in November 1982 and remained above 10% from September 1982 through June 1983. Unemployment remained over 8% through January 1984 before dipping lower. By contrast, unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009 for one month, before declining to below 10% after that, although remaining high at above 8% through April 2012. Unemployment numbers at the beginning of both recessions were at similar levels, around 6% in early-1980 and around 5% in early 2008. In regards to inflation, the 1980–1982 recession inflation rate peaked at 14.76% in March 1980 and remained over 10% through October 1981, before dropping in early-to-mid 1982. By comparison, inflation during the 2008–2009 recession was practically non-existent, with a peak of nearly 5.6% inflation in July 2008 before dropping to .09% by December 2008." [5]My opponent used his own sources against him. This is an enormous fail. President Reagan had worst recession to deal with than BO had to. Why is this one called the Great Recession? That is because of how long it is due to the failure of BO's policies. [5]My opponent says he has no idea where I get my argument that more spending is better in recessions. However, I cited Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist. The reason the Barack Obama recovery is weaker is because the depression was ten times worse than Reagan's! Just becaue Paul Krugman says so does not mean its right. I have provided much more sources than my opponent has on the economy. My opponent also had not direct quotes from Krugman to use while I did use more direct quotes. Despite the fact that the 1980s recession was a worse recession, President Reagan did a much better job in fixing it. Look here at job growth: Strength of the recoveries: As we can conclude here, BO did worse. [6]II. Foreign Policy"My opponent's counter refutation to my rebuttal that it is not the fault of Obama for the lives lost in Benghazi, but the fault of war, was merely a reaffirmation of his point. He just said his point and expects you to believe that he has countered my refutation. War results in death!"I was talking about the lack of protection for the US ambassador and the others. That is an epic fail. Had there been more protection, their deaths would have been more unlikely."My opponent then badly paraphrases me, "why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing". The answer to this question is that we freed millions of people that were opressed by a dictator. Until my opponent tells us about what Egypt is doing against America (aka nothing) we can assume our affairs in Egypt are sucessful."My opponent just tried to justify that giving terrorists who hate us weapons is good. This is incredibly false. Thye might use weapons against us. Then we have Egypt, which is a threat to Israel, our close ally. Its also a waste of money.ConclusionMy arguments have stood in the end and have not been broken. I used much more sources than Con. Vote for President Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest president ever!Sources1. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato Institute. N.p., 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.3. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.4. "Tower Commission Report Excerpts." Tower Commission Report Excerpts. N.p., n.d. Web.5. http://en.wikipedia.org...6. Carroll, Conn. "The Obama Recovery vs the Reagan Recovery in Charts." Washington Examiner. N.p., 27 Aug. 2012. Web.