George Bush is an idiot

Thanks Roy. There are several straw-man arguments in Con's last round, where my points have been misunderstood or misrepresented. I apologise if I have been at all unclear. I never asked Con to prove that the resolution is a common claim, of course it is. In attempting to explain how something can be both common and outrageous, Con carefully avoids addressing the word "extraordinary" that I referred to at greater length. Clearly something can not be both common and extraordinary. The point of my last round opening arguments was that since the claim is common (as confirmed by the 7,000,000 Google hits my opponent refers to) and is not extraordinary (since it can't be both) then Con's assertion that I alone should bear the burden of proof in this debate is not valid. Yes I am Pro and therefore have to uphold the resolution but I argue that as the instigator of the debate, Con should also bear the burden of proving the resolution false. Con: "Pro maintains that so long as definitions are strung together from the same dictionary that equivocation is not possible. Equivocation has nothing to do with the dictionary, it has to do with using different meanings of words." The meaning of words is of course defined by dictionaries so the two things are clearly intrinsically linked. I never made a claim about equivocation being impossible. "Equivocation is a logical fallacy that alters a word's meaning in the middle of an argument"http://ddofans.com... My opponent started this debate with more than one definition from the same dictionary and it was in the very first round of debate that I responded to these same definitions while also defining some of their component clauses from the same source. I don't see how this qualifies as the fallacy of equivocation. At Con's request, I have kept policy discussion to a minimum in this debate. The link that lists some examples of bad policy, Con labels as "lame" because he does not agree with 2 out of 10 "mistakes". Con ignores details relating to military and economic decisions for obvious reasons. Regarding my supposed failure to provide evidence of the deterioration in Bush's speaking, the footage of Bush speaking far more fluently as governor of Texas should not just be compared with the later footage from the same youtube clip but also with the countless other examples I have provided (and indeed any other available footage) of Bush during his presidency. The deterioration is clearly apparent to even the most stubborn Bush-ite. Con claims to have shown counter-examples but has linked to just one video. Bush does do a decent job (for him) in his last presidential address but he still stumbles twice in the 2 minute speech (0.30, 1.35) he also speaks very slowly and stiffly, clearly being prompted both visually and via earpiece. If Con has evidence of George during or post-presidency speaking with anything approaching the fluidity he achieved as a younger man then I would like to see it. _______ 1. Con:"Recall of names and faces refers to people Bush has met and meets again" This was not remotely implicit when the claim was made. Why should his recall of people he has met be better than his recall of important international figures? While it is difficult to research for sure whether Bush had already met any of the leaders he could not name in the interview, I think it clearly shows his lack of an "encyclopedic" memory, the extraordinary claim made by Con. For evidence of him seeming disorientated, there is plenty in the Bushism clips. Most notable perhaps are his failure to remember which door he had come in by, his reaction when informed of the 9/11 attacks and thinking he is in Austria when he's in Australia. http://www.rawstory.com... 2. I don't know enough about James Madison to have an opinion on whether he was (or is) an idiot but the suggestion that he was a poor speaker as well as a mighty intellect cannot lead us to any conclusions on Bush. While speaking ability may not be a reliable criteria to judge metal capacity on it's own, it clearly can be a good indicator of it. We would expect a brilliant college student to be a much better speaker than a brain-damaged illiterate for example. 3. Rather than address the substance of Dr. Price's claim, Con focuses on the ethics. I have argued above about the evidence of deterioration that any neutral observer will have seen for themselves. Obama is as irrelevant to this debate as Madison but he has actually given plenty of clear and articulate speeches without prompter or notes, I will provide an example in the comments section. Con: "It is insulting to suppose that any impairment whatsoever makes a person "an idiot." Dementia represents a serious retardation of mental capacity, see my sources from round 1. The fact that people voted for Bush does not make him "smart", it means that a great deal of voters are either: a) None too smart themselves, or (more likely), b) Not too concerned with intelligence and more impressed by a 'man of the people' than with one of those uppity intellectual types. 4. Of course public and private speaking are two different things but I don't see any reason why a person would be less aware of what they are saying when they are speaking in public. If anything people are likely to be more self-conscious and aware of what they are saying in such a setting. Although I've obviously not addressed any audiences on the same scale as Bush has, I am generally aware of the slightest mistake I make when speaking on stage, into a microphone or just addressing a group of students. I am confident that many novice debaters in this site are also more aware and generally just 'better' at public speaking than Bush has been for a long time. Also many Bushisms take place in less formal settings and one-on-one interviews. 5. I would be interested to know if there is any kind of law that dictates that White House physicians must make significant findings public? My understanding of the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement is that it is pretty watertight. My opponent's NY Times source regarding Reagan does not support his claim that a president's medical information is automatically in the public domain: "The doctors said they had taken the *unusual* step of discussing their former patient's medical history publicly". Presumably Bush also has his own private doctor(s) that report to him in confidence, so he and his advisers would've been ready for any nasty surprises. Obviously a Republican administration eager to get their candidate re-elected would have the motive and means to place a doctor sympathetic to their needs in this position. It would not require much of a conspiracy to ensure that undesired details could be kept out of such a report. 6. There is not room to debate here whether SATs are a valid IQ test (although these sites debunk the claim: http://www.pbs.org... http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...) or to discuss the validity of IQ tests in general. The fact is that Bush's schoolboy exam results have no impact on the arguments I've made. 7. Con: "The point about Biden is that policy differences drive the criticism of Bush." I think the volume of clips of Biden gaffes Con referred to easily refutes this. Despite his party affiliation and the fact that he has a much lower profile than Bush, Biden is just as susceptible to foolishness and, in turn, mockery. Con's insistence that such derision is politically motivated seems delusional. ______ As requested, I won't debate in the last round, unless of course Con makes any entirely new arguments that warrant a response. I'm out of characters but my arguments stand. Face it, Bush is an idiot. Pro.