George W. Bush was a bad president.

“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” -John Quincy Adams“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” -Thomas JeffersonAnalysisThere are a few glaring problems with my opponent’s argument you have most likely already noticed:1) My opponent provided no metric for qualifying George Bush’s presidency, rendering his argument at best parasitic on mine, and at worst irrelevant and misguided.2) Although my opponent has raised no direct objections to my criteria of evaluating Bush’s presidency, he seems to have a difficult time accepting the criteria that seem axiomatic to most human beings: peace, prosperity, and freedom. Until he objects to these qualities of limited government that are conducive to the well-being of society, we have to implicitly accept that he agrees with my criteria, and must read his arguments through that three-pronged lense.3) My opponent cleverly uprooted the debate structure by providing his rebuttal during the second round. Turn arguments are a good tool to use in debate, but not when they conflict with the agreed upon round structure. Round three is explicitly for the “Rebuttal to opponent's main argument.” My opponent’s second round was exclusively a rebuttal to points that I had brought up, which is grounds for a conduct deduction. Now, instead of rebutting my opponent’s own argument, I have to uphold my argument because of his carelessness.4) My opponent presents, in typical CiRrk fashion, almost no ability to synthesize information in an original manner to create a debate case. He simply copies what others have said and pastes them directly into the debate. This is the lowest level on Bloom’s Taxonomy. While quoting 80% of his case verbatim from others’ works is close to plagiarism, in debate it’s just bad form and lack of mental rigor; this should be taken into account when judging arguments.5) Although this one is rather minor, my opponent forgot a witty quote.Invading prevented more deaths in the long run by preventing democideThis argument is prima facie incompetent. The logic runs like this (and no this is not a straw man rebuttal): in order to prevent Saddam’s democide, the United States government had to commit democide to prevent it. Killing over 122,000 innocent civilians in a aggressive war of revenge is democide by definition and is very wrong in practically every ethical system. Further, some estimates range as high as 600,000-1,000,000 deaths, making the US government not only the larger total democidal entity, but per-year. Furthermore, democide prevention is not why soldiers were told they were being sent to Iraq by George Bush. Finally, my opponent has yet to tie this argument into the resolution, leaving it without an implication in this debate. Invading has prevented deaths in the long run by preventing future warsAt this point in my opponent’s argument you have likely realized he is not interested in discussing Bush’s policies in relation to the resolution, but rather making a case for the unjustified war in Iraq, and making a poor one at that. Waging an unnecessary war of aggression based on 900 lies is contrary to the criteria of peace, which my case is built through and my opponent implicitly accepts, rendering this argument and his pro-war stupor irrelevant. It goes without saying that this argument fails both in cogency and implication.U.S. created Middle East instability reduced the chance of terrorismThis assertion of this argument has been analyzed empirically, and has failed. “A cross-national, time-series analysis of 166 countries during the period from 1970 to 2005 shows that the overall effect of U.S. military intervention on terrorism is detrimental, fueling more terrorist incidents if not more terrorist casualties.” This is in line with the basic human fact that killing one’s family, friends, and countrymen is likely to incite revenge. The CIA calls this blowback, and it is relevant in this debate. George Bush’s invasion of Iraq decreases the opinion of the United States on the world stage and incites Iraqi aggression against the country, further decreasing the safety of the nation. [1]Stated the grounds for war in Iraq were “Weapons of Mass Destruction”My opponent cites a defunct website that was last updated in August 2006, and was updated by a “Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control from 2000-2006.” My evidence is from two reports published by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and available online that in Iraq they found no unconventional weapons or weapons programs. Set the stage for the Great RecessionMy opponent states that I did not declare any impact of the recession, but any competent reader will understand the impact that the Great Recession had on his life and on the lives of others in his country. The impact of Bush’s policies were a more devastating economic fiasco in the future (2008), because he wanted to be reelected (2004). The artificial Fed stimulus produced the bubbles in the sectors of financial services and real estate, which when burst, left the economy in a state of disrepair. Recession goodA recession is a natural way for an economy to restructure and reallocate resources efficiently, when they are on unsustainable investment trajectories. However, Bush didn’t want the recession to occur in his first term due to his putting his political incentives above the country’s economic health. As a result of his economic and monetary policies, the unrestructured economy continued its sickness in artificial stimulus only to fail and regress into the worst economic period since the Great Depression; the Great Recession is predominantly due to his policies. After not learning a lesson from the minor recession early in his term, Bush pursued more economic intervention, stimulus, government committees, and bad monetary policy the second time around.My opponent then goes scatter-brained and starts citing bizarre reasons why this recession was good, while ignoring the short-term and long-term economic damage the recession caused, which we can agree he implicitly accepts, seeing as though he says this particular recession was good.Obama can’t win election nowThis is false based on most standards, and historically it is not true. FDR won reelection many times, even though he was directly responsible for extending and exacerbating the Great Depression. But, even if I admit that Obama can’t win election, this argument goes in my favor because the terrible policies of the Bush presidency were largely continued and expanded during the Obama presidency.His second and third reasons are irrelevant when talking about the recession.Prosperity 2: Increased ProtectionismManaged trade is not free trade. My opponent doesn't address the issue of tariffs.Freedom 1DroppedFreedom 2My opponent can’t come up with his own argument, so he quotes someone saying it’s decent to violate the constitution.[1] http://papers.ssrn.com...