reagan was a bad president

My opponent still believes that the debt is the reason Reagan was a bad President. "If I borrow from a bank, that doesn't mean the debt is "because" of the bank, so much as because I choose to accept the money. China is essentially our bank. Your arguments about China's fear of cashing in on the debt, is really non sequiter, as it has nothing to do with the fact that we borrowed the money from them in the first place." My Response: My point is that we don't need to return it. The national debt in today's society really has no effects. There would be no ramifications if we didn't pay it off. That's my point. We don't need to give it back. "Perhaps he should be criticized for his debt too, that doesn't mean Reagan should get off too. Plus, Lincoln had other things goig for him.... and if your argument ist that Reagan had other things goig for him, then it was non sequiter to argue that Lincoln had high debt as an argument in iself as you did, instead of the other things he had going for him." My Response: Ok the, let's label all presidents as bad that had high national debt. Or even better, any president that had debt at all should be considered bad. Essentially, national debt does not make a bad president. Thus, it doesn't affirm the resolution. It's non-unique. A president is not bad or good based on national debt. "If I borrow money, and because of that reason my business increases, which is analogous to the gov and economy, that doesn't deflect the fact taht now I am going to have to pay it all back with interest. The economy largely takes care of itself, capitialism works generally, and only needs a little push here and there by interest rate manipulation for optimality. So i'll accept the premise that Reagan was responsbility for some of it, but most of it is questionable, given the ecnomy takes care of itself." My Response: That's exactly it. Reagan gave the push it needed from the failures of the Carter Administration. If Reagan did nothing, then he would be a bad president. However, he did do something, which saved the economy from virtual collapse. You can extend my contention I, and all its sub-points. They have gone unrefuted. "This is an unfounded claim. Everyone knows communism doesn't work well, simply because of its own dynamic, and everone knows the russians were having infighting and debts despite paying for their weopons. To think, that their weopons debt made the whole country collapse is sensational, simplistic thinking. If their country were otherwise okay, they could have survived something as measely as borrowing for weopns,,,, that their country couldn't do something so simple, shows that their structure was altogether bad to ebgin with, and bound to fail anyway. At any rate, the burden is on the person saying something so extreme to prove their point. the presumption shuld be taht what you sad is merely rhetoric, espeically as you've given no facts." My Response: I'm using logic. Syllogism 1. Reagan forced the USSR into a arms race 2. An arms race costs lots of money 3. The USSR had a horrible economy 4. The USSR spent what was left of its money on developing weapons 5. This arms race caused the economy of the USSR to collapse 6. Therefore, Regan (who forced them into an arms race) was the indirect reason for the collapse of the soviet economy, and thus the state in general. This is a clear negative vote.