FDR's "New Deal" didn't fix the great depression.

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not debating the different aspects that might have brought America out of the Great Depression, I am debating on whether or whether not FDR'S "New Deal" policies were successful. The point that "anyone who thinks it was solely the "New Deal" that lifted the world out of the Great Depression is utterly insane" is irrelevant because it is not the debate. Many people do believe it was FDR's New Deal that solved the depression, just as many as people think it was WW2, or a combination of those and other things, but that is another debate and not this one. Anyway, back to the issues. My opponent quoted a survey done at Wake Forest University, to try to highlight the controversial matter regarding the "New Deal. " As this paragraph was not a countering argument, or anything I could counter argue, reading this was a large waste of my time, and wasted my opponents time trying to find it. The purpose of being "CON" is to offer opposing viewpoints, and not insult the intelligence of the audience in an attempt to "explain" why we are debating the subject. The fact that we are debating is proof enough that this is a dividing issue! My opponents second point is so full of holes it makes mozzarella look like swiss cheese. First my opponent tries to "take into account of the human factor. " This isn't a human factor, this is a hypothetical factor. Lets stick to reality please. Then my opponent foolishly tries to make a case that most economists are in AGREEMENT that the New Deal helped! Well I read somewhere that, in a survey done at Wake Forest University, that almost half of the economists in the survey couldn't agree that the New Deal worked or not! I can't remember where I read that, remind me? I am glad that my opponent took the time to Google search "New Deal" and found an article, that someone else wrote, that defended the New Deal and then linked it so we could all read the person's article. Thank you, I appreciate the effort. Thats why from now on I will refer to my opponent as "Matthew Bandyk", as I am no longer debating "Reganfan", I am debating on whoever wrote that article he linked to. His name is Matthew. At inspection, Mr. Bandyk's article did very little to prove that the New Deal was a success story. In fact, the article seemed prove the New Deal was entirely a failure. But, of course my opponent (Reaganfan) surly realizes the error in my perception and will respond with, what will be an excellent rebuttal I'm sure. Let us examine this "evidence. " "The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, in particular, gets a lot of blame. The National Recovery Administration, a federal bureaucracy that limited competition in various industries by setting prices and wages above market levels. " "While it benefited some producers, the NRA's policies meant basic goods were more expensive for consumers and jobs harder to come by for people who were already in dire straits. " (1) Is this your proof? "Relief policies from the Homeowners Loan Corp. actually put a greater burden on the backs of the poorest in society, the opposite of what they intended. " "Excise taxes on goods predominantly purchased by middle- and lower-class people were the main funding sources for these programs. "If you're just taking [money] from other middle- and low-income people, it's kind of a wash,"(2) This is my opponents (Reganfan) proof? Remember, this is the source that HE made a link to! Matthew Bandyk, my real opponent, showed us evidence of the failures of the New Deal, not its supposed successes. My other opponent, Reganfan, showed me no evidence that New Deal was a success story, and that I am wrong. Until my opponent realizes that he is against me, being "CON" and all, and until he proves his point that he is correct and that I am wrong, I see no reason to continue this round. Thank you. (1) . http://www.usnews.com...= (2) . http://www.usnews.com...=