Ronald Reagan was a Bad President

To provide a quick roadmap, I'll just go over my opponents arguments line by line as he made them 1. Certainly popular opinion isn't good enough on its own, but it would be ridiculous to say it isn't a relevant factor at all. If we entrust the citizenry to elect the president it would also make sense that we listen to their opinions on who the best president was. Also, there is a difference between a matter of fact and a matter of opinion, the shape of the world is a matter of fact, speculation on who the greatest president is is a matter of opinion so extend this argument since a good way to determine matters of opinion is popular opinion. 2. Considering aff ignores my cards showing how Ronald Reagan ended the cold war, extend those and then look to the fact that my opponents own card cites how Reagan was responsible for warming US relations with the Soviet Union and creating an environment that would put us in a strong negotiating position (by improving the economy, as his own article says), in fact my opponents article states that Bush actively discouraged the dissolution of the Soviet Union as he believed it would lead to chaos. cross apply his own source against his economic arguments since through admission of his own source Reagan improved the economy. 3. My opponent oversimplifies this issue and fails to realize that there will always be huge growth after a large war, the first graph is the postwar boom, the second graph represents the boom slowing down. No country has sustained positive economic growth indefinitely. Also, my opponent refuses to acknowledge any of my cards for this so extend, meaning that he directly contradicts himself when he says Ronald Reagan ignored the positive effects of the past economy, since I gave ample evidence as to how Reagan improved the economy. It is recognized by most economists that Reagan pulled us out of a recession and reversed the disastrous inflation imposed by Jimmy Carter. Extend my Forbes analysis where the author says "Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak." (end quote) while it is true that Reagan increased the deficit, some spending is necessary to stimulate the economy and deficit is not positively correlated with economic strength or growth. 4. My opponent doesn't cite anything for #4, but even if he does unless it came from an objective source that dealt with him on a day to day basis, I wouldn't say its a fair analysis. 5. The source my opponent cites has been commonly criticized as being biased and giving too much credence to accusations that weren't substantiated, as a WSJ reporter writes: U.S. news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. It alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Sandinistas.[77] In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported: Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[78]" Additionally, according to an analysis by Rudolph Rummel, the Contras killed only about 500 civilians while the Sandinista killed in excess of 4,000. 6. Cross apply my sources on the Al Qaeda where Osama Bin Laden himself admits that the US had "no mentionable role" in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And all who have had close contact with Bin Laden mirror these sentiments. To reply to your source, that is conflating US aid of indigenous afghan Muhjahideen with foreign Mujahideen, two key differences as Afghan Muhjahideen never went on to be terrorists on a large scale. Also look to the fact that the sources were sparsely cited. 7. (Apartheid) My opponent blatantly distorts the truth since at one time Mandela's organization was a violent terror group, whether their cause was just or not this remains true. Also there were allegations that his sanctions were too weak but my opponent provides no warrant for that, he was against congress imposing stronger sanctions since he believed it infringed upon his power to conduct foreign policy. 7. (Dictatorships) my opponent drops the El Salvador argument since all he does is repeat himself and only repeats himself on the Marcos argument, where Marcos was considered a "soft dictator" and treated his people with dignity and afforded them individual rights. Simply being a dictatorship isn't a warrant for not giving aid to a nation if they further our national security interests. On Noriega, he did what was right based on the information he had at the time, he couldn't predict what Noriega would eventually turn in to. 8. Not going to refute 138 allegations but I already replied to the 9 allegations. My opponent states that Reagan was wrong for pardoning corrupt officials and that my challenge to his argument being non unique is invalid by providing an extremely biased source on Reagan's "corruption. Lets take a look at one of the examples they gave Reagan, dodging reporters questions in 1985 : "They turned out the lights. That tells me I can't talk anymore." " They are alleging he was corrupt for not answering a reporters question after the lights were turned out in the room. Obviously this is a partisan site and their work shows. Lastly my opponent claims Reagan "furthered the idea of corruption" in America, I'll leave the voters to decide on this issue since there is no warrant for that claim and therefore no way I could refute it. 9) You don't have to but someone can be wrong without being a liar Just because there is no proof she existed doesn't mean she didn't, as you say we don't know if she did or not. Cross apply the concentration camp allegation with the above logic For the voters, dropped arguments: Contention Three: All cards dropped (although he did address the tagline of the contention) Sources: http://www.forbes.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...