George Bush is an idiot

Thanks for your response Roy. To be honest, I am a little disappointed that my opponent has not done more to fulfil his share of the burden of proof. I know that in his introduction Con stated that the burden should rest with me but let's quickly take a look at his reasons for this assertion again: Con: "The claim being so apparently outrageous, it is appropriate to require that Pro bear the burden of proof and make a case as to why that claim is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." There are clear contradictions between these statements and another from a few sentences before. Con: "The claim is common." "Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary or unusual and is clearly an antonym of the word "common". http://www.google.co.uk... If the claim is common then how can it be described as unusual or "outrageous"? I am not trying to shed my burden here, merely encouraging my opponent to take more responsibility for establishing his own case. ========== Con: "Pro is attempting an equivocation on "idiot." One which is supported by my opponent's own definitions and his preferred dictionary. Con: "The motivation for ridiculing Bush's stumbling speech is not that it is funny, it is that they can use it as an excuse to not treat policy issues as policy issues" Whoa, of course it is! I find it hard to believe that even the most stony-faced aficionado of Bush would fail to raise at least a smirk at some of Bush's golden moments. Con has no basis for assuming that all such humour is politically motivated. I would suggest that most of the people who laugh at and assemble these clips probably have little interest in politics. ========= 1. My opponent compares Bush's speech problems with Roosevelt's confinement to a wheelchair. The problem with this is that it is far more important for a president to be able to talk than for him to be able to walk. As the role of president primarily involves decision making and communication, mental incapacity is clearly a far greater drawback than physical incapacity. Con: "Pro has provided no evidence whatsoever of any diminished decision-making capacity." I did refer to this but kept it to a side note since Con emphasised that this should not be a debate about policy. See source #6 from my last round. Con: "Bush is noted for his encyclopedic ability to recall names and faces" However "noted" for this ability he may be, George clearly does not possess it. There is a well known video of Bush failing to correctly name many world leaders including his ally General Musharaff of Pakistan. The video is at the top of this post and the substance is discussed in this link. http://www.salon.com... http://www.youtube.com... ___________ 2. Con: "Pro claims that there is some correlation between speaking ability and mental capacity." Con does nothing to refute such a claim. I don't see the relevance of James Madison to this debate. ____________ 3. Con: "Pro contends that Bush's poor speaking is consistent with an onset of dementia. Right, and the appearance of crop circles is consistent with the theory that Vegans have come across the galaxy to stomp our wheat. Being consistent with a wild theory does not prove the theory." Ridiculous comparisons aside, this is no wild theory but the professional opinion of a medical doctor that my opponent should properly address rather than dismissing. Bush's symptoms are "almost specific" to the condition described, whereas there are plenty of more likely explanations for crop circles. Con claims to have observed an improvement in Bush's speech during his tenure but admits that this can't be verified objectively. I would ask readers to take a quick look at my second video this round to observe the level of deterioration for themselves. Con also suggests that George spoke poorly as president because he couldn't handle the pressure. If this is the case then it was surely a foolish decision to take on the role and if the pressure could have such an impact on his speech, I dread to think how it could have affected his decision making abilities. __________ 4. Con makes the case that we all stumble over words and make mistakes sometimes and that it is simply Bush's incredibly high public profile that has caused such attention to be focused on his blunders. I will admit that even someone as articulate and erudite as myself (he he) makes the occasional mistake. The main difference however is that most of us are aware of such errors as soon as we make them, whereas Mr Bush generally remains oblivious. Bush's total lack of awareness of what he is saying when he makes a blunder is what makes the clips so hilarious and also what puts his behaviour beyond the range of typical human error. If he corrected his blunders promptly himself then they would be far less news-worthy and lol-inducing. The fact that he occasionally does manage to string a successful speech together is no great defense. This should be the norm rather than the exception. __________ 5. Con seems to be determined to label me as some kind of conspiracy theorist merely for questioning a former president's mental health. You don't have to imagine a very complex conspiracy to suppose that confidential patient information could be kept private, as in cases like Ronald Reagan. http://books.google.co.uk... __________ 6. Con's assessment of Bush's IQ is unscientific, illogical and also irrelevant. A maths and English test is not an IQ test. It is also entirely possible for someone with a high IQ to have poor judgement, therefore being foolish. Proper IQ tests give a range rather than a precise figure and I have argued that Bush's mental capacity has significantly deteriorated, making any assessment of his school-boy IQ insignificant. http://www.youtube.com... Con: "Barrack Obama has concealed his test scores and educational records" This is more of a conspiracy claim than any I have made. It's also pretty irrelevant. __________ 7. Biden does seem to have made a lot of gaffes and I'm willing to accept that he may be a foolish "idiot" too. This doesn't address the case of George W Bush. ======== Con: "The "Bush is an idiot" mantra is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss arguments rather than make them. The claim is most often made while ranting like an idiot." I sincerely hope I haven't ranted or behaved idiotically in this debate and I think if anyone is dismissing arguments it is my opponent. He has not given a serious response to the diagnosis of Dr. Price. (idiot 1: Merriam-Webster) He has not denied that Bush has sometimes lacked judgement and made foolish mistakes. (idiot 2, fool 1: Merriam-Webster) He has not denied that Bush has become a comical figure of ridicule (idiot 2, fool 2: Merriam-Webster) I eagerly await my opponent's response. Thanks.