Who Was The Worst President in American History? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Who Was The Worst President in American History?
in Politics

By republicansrepublicans 7 Pts
I think that Bill Clinton was the worst president.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    How so? 

    Slick Willie was a lousy president, but at least he was willing to work with the congressional majority to get some things done, unlike the last POTUS.
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    Bill Clinton earned himself an impeachment. 
  • SharkySharky 98 Pts
    It's Obama. If the MSM would ever do their job and investigate and report on the guy's real history, the truth about him would shock the country to its core. 
  • SharkySharky 98 Pts
    It's Obama. If the MSM would ever do their job and investigate and report on the guy's real history, the truth about him would shock the country to its core. 
  • SharkySharky 98 Pts
    It's Obama. If the MSM would ever do their job and investigate and report his true story, the truth about him would shock the country to its core. 
  • So far it's James Buchanan but Trump is a strong contender... He was a proslavery politician who thought the nation’s increasing moral discomfort with slavery would be resolved by the Supreme Court’s dreadful Dred Scott decision, the ruling that denied U.S. citizenship to black residents. He, too, tried to help Kansas become a slavery state. Buchanan, the country’s 15th president, basically rolled out the red carpet for the Civil War, then gleefully turned the fractured country over to Lincoln.
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • So many to choose from, Georga bush, I suppose.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    Lol, the racism of Americans who call Obama the worst president is ridiculous.

    There are presidents who presided over genocide and slavery but no, the worst president is guilty of being black while President.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987piloteer
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I'm amazed at just how many people jump on the "of course it's a recent liberal!" bandwagon, and I definitely agree that Buchanan is a strong contender for the reason you cited. Harding would be a solid choice as well, since his presidency was marred by numerous scandals, including the notorious Teapot Dome. Andrew Jackson should always get an honorable mention at the very least on lists like this solely for the Trail of Tears, and for all @TKDB's focus on impeachment, Andrew Johnson was also convicted (and fought giving now-freed slaves voting rights and citizenship to boot). I won't speak to the accuracy of claims that more modern presidents should be placed on the "worst of all time" list (I think it's too early to know just how much damage they've done - I think we've only recently seen the full effects of the George H.W. Bush presidency come to fruition), but I think it's kind of amazing that so many people in this forum can't think beyond the past couple of decades worth of presidents.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987piloteer
  • @whiteflame
    it's kind of amazing that so many people in this forum can't think beyond the past couple of decades worth of presidents.
    I think it is reflective of the degradation of the attention span in the general population coupled with the "What existed before my time doesn't really matter, and what may exist after me doesn't either" mentality... :( 

    And you're right about Harding! ^^

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Lol, the racism of Americans who call Obama the worst president is ridiculous.

    There are presidents who presided over genocide and slavery but no, the worst president is guilty of being black while President.
    Here you go, you earned it;


    MayCaesarZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    Ampersand said:
    Lol, the racism of Americans who call Obama the worst president is ridiculous.

    There are presidents who presided over genocide and slavery but no, the worst president is guilty of being black while President.
    Here you go, you earned it;


    LOL that you think your opinion is a logical argument or factual data.

    Tell me more about how Obama's supposed inability to work with a congressional majority is uniquely worse than genocide, slavery or ensuring that even free black people weren't considered US citizens and that no you're not at all racist!
    Plaffelvohfenpiloteer
  • SharkySharky 98 Pts
    @Ampersand

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with his embarrassing, abysmal record or his flagrant corruption or his penchant for Marxist policy positions or his proclivity for appeasing our enemies and alienating our allies or his laughable economic illiteracy or his relentless pursuit of class warfare and the politics of envy; it's ALL about his race. 

    Seriously, don't you people ever get tired of hearing yourselves repeat this nonsense? If Obama was a white guy from Chicago named Barry O'Bannion and he had the same exact policy agenda and record, I would rank him exactly the same. Translation: I don't care for communists, especially thinly-veiled, closeted ones. 
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartawhiteflameMayCaesarZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    Ampersand said:

    LOL that you think your opinion is a logical argument or factual data.

    Tell me more about how Obama's supposed inability to work with a congressional majority is uniquely worse than genocide, slavery or ensuring that even free black people weren't considered US citizens and that no you're not at all racist!

    What are you going on about?!?  I haven't said anything about who the worst president in US history was.  You're correct, there were a lot Dem presidents that did awful things like embrace slavery, oppose equal rights, force the relocation of native Americans, intern Asian Americans, etc.  But I refuse to judge the actions of people who lived in a different era by today's standards.  I'll only go so far as to say just based on the shear level of corruption, the use of federal agencies as tools of political oppression, 0bama is by far the worst president in recent history.  Your suggestion that my opinion has anything to do with 0bama's race earned you that race card.  It truly is the tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a a logical argument.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    edited June 29
    Sharky said:
    @Ampersand

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with his embarrassing, abysmal record or his flagrant corruption or his penchant for Marxist policy positions or his proclivity for appeasing our enemies and alienating our allies or his laughable economic illiteracy or his relentless pursuit of class warfare and the politics of envy; it's ALL about his race. 

    Seriously, don't you people ever get tired of hearing yourselves repeat this nonsense? If Obama was a white guy from Chicago named Barry O'Bannion and he had the same exact policy agenda and record, I would rank him exactly the same. Translation: I don't care for communists, especially thinly-veiled, closeted ones. 
    You're right, it has nothing to do with those things because those are crazy bizarre claims. I shouldn't have to point out how the USA is just as much a Capitalist nation with rich and poor working on a wage and salary basis set by business owners as it was 10 years ago or how Obama normalised relations with most countries that had been damaged by Bush (and are now being damaged again by Trump?). E.g.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Barack_Obama +61% Net popularity in the UK
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Donald_Trump -46% Net popularity in the UK
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/George_W_Bush -25% Net popularity in the UK

    Just about the only ally Obama had poorer relations with was Israel and that's pretty much down to Israel.

    That your criticism of Obama is bizarre vitriolic screed with no substance only furthers my argument as it certainly shwos a clear animus towards Obama, but the stated reasons for the animus are false. Tack on "Oh, I'd say this is he were white too" at the end all you want, but his behaviour was completely conventional and yet we can see you're not attacking white presidents for the same thing. 

    CYDdharta
    said:
    Ampersand said:

    LOL that you think your opinion is a logical argument or factual data.

    Tell me more about how Obama's supposed inability to work with a congressional majority is uniquely worse than genocide, slavery or ensuring that even free black people weren't considered US citizens and that no you're not at all racist!

    What are you going on about?!?  I haven't said anything about who the worst president in US history was.  You're correct, there were a lot Dem presidents that did awful things like embrace slavery, oppose equal rights, force the relocation of native Americans, intern Asian Americans, etc.  But I refuse to judge the actions of people who lived in a different era by today's standards.  I'll only go so far as to say just based on the shear level of corruption, the use of federal agencies as tools of political oppression, 0bama is by far the worst president in recent history.  Your suggestion that my opinion has anything to do with 0bama's race earned you that race card.  It truly is the tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a a logical argument.
    How magnanimous of you to simultaneously forgive slavery and genocide even when it was viewed as morally wrong by many at the time and try and turn it into a political issue to attack Democrats regardless. Doesn't really help you on your "Not racist" credentials though.

    I will also repeat - as you didn't seem to learn and are just repeating a failed argument - every single one of your claims is just your own personal opinion. You can choose to say Obama was corrupt or used federal agencies as tools of political oppression, but you have presented 0 evidence to support this. Don't therefore pretend you have made a "logical argument" or provided "factual data".

    My opinion about the racism of Obama detractors with no real evidence is just my opinion too, same as yours. If my argument is inadmissible, so is yours. The main  difference is I'm not a whiner who complains that someone has a different opinion from me.




    Plaffelvohfen
  • SharkySharky 98 Pts
    @Ampersand

    It appears, based on the contents of your post, that you are from the UK. In my view, the opinions of leftist Brits on the performance of American Presidents mean virtually nothing. You folks have managed to screw up your own country irretrievably with your penchant for marching towards Marxism. You've nationalized much of your economy with predictably disastrous results. Your judicial system consistently crushes your freedom of speech on behalf of a certain religious minority as that minority grows increasingly radicalized and threatens your entire tradition of Western liberalism. Instead of defending your liberty, you coddle and enable the very people who will eventually take it from you entirely. You'll have to excuse me for rejecting your past actions, your future goals and your belief system in general.  

    It's clear from the ignorance displayed in your post that you get your information from the same biased, leftist press that dominates American journalism. Did you really think that the American people and a Republican-led Congress were going to allow Obama to destroy free market capitalism in the US within eight years? He did his best but there are far too many of us who will have none of it. Those of us who understand the sin of omission committed by the American MSM know the truth about Obama and the radical American left. The fact that so-called journalists have been complicit in covering up the truth about the man for the last 15 years is unforgivable in my opinion. The corruption, ineptitude and dishonesty of the Obama regime was unprecedented. Considering that the Clintons occupied the White House a mere 8-16 years prior, that's saying a lot. I'd be happy to give you plenty of detail on Obama's crimes and malfeasance but this post would then be interminable. 

    Again, my animosity towards Obama has little to do with his race other than the fact that he actually exploited his race to create further division amongst the American people. I don't like leftists no matter their skin color. I especially don't like leftists who use the kind of dirty, corrupt, Chicago-style tactics that Obama did to further his Marxist policy agenda. Your "opinion" on the racism of Obama detractors isn't really an opinion; it's a leftist talking point and mantra crafted to shift the focus away from the truth and onto some bogus bogeyman. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    edited June 30
    Ampersand said:

    How magnanimous of you to simultaneously forgive slavery and genocide even when it was viewed as morally wrong by many at the time and try and turn it into a political issue to attack Democrats regardless. Doesn't really help you on your "Not racist" credentials though.

    I will also repeat - as you didn't seem to learn and are just repeating a failed argument - every single one of your claims is just your own personal opinion. You can choose to say Obama was corrupt or used federal agencies as tools of political oppression, but you have presented 0 evidence to support this. Don't therefore pretend you have made a "logical argument" or provided "factual data".

    My opinion about the racism of Obama detractors with no real evidence is just my opinion too, same as yours. If my argument is inadmissible, so is yours.

    "Forgive slavery and genocide"?!?  What a ridiculous concept, where do you come up with this crap??  I simply don't disparage people for things they have never done, too bad you feel the need to do just that.  This selective "sins of the father" outrage is a bunch of crap.  Go down that road far enough and nobody's hands are clean.  And my "not racist" credentials don't need any help.  I support the party that fought to free the slaves, you support the party that started a war to keep slavery legal.  I support the party that fought to pass the civil rights act, you support the party that fought against it.  Your "not racist" credentials are seriously lacking (see what happens when we go down the "sins of the father" road). 

    Unless you've been living in a cave, you're already aware 0bama's IRS has admitted wrongdoing by targeting TEA Party groups.  You should also have heard that 0bama's DOJ spied on James Rosen.  Those are just incidents that you already know about; I didn't feel the need to provide evidence of incident of which you are well aware.  0bama's corruption is well documented, it's not just my opinion.  Here is a more detailed list of 0bama using governmental agencies are political weapons;


    The main  difference is I'm not a whiner who complains that someone has a different opinion from me.

    ROFL, we have a winner for the most ironic and self-unaware line on the site.
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    It should have happened to Nixon, not JFK!!!! 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1872 Pts
    edited July 1
    My ranking of worst presidents in the US history goes as follows.

    1. Woodrow Wilson
    The guy responsible for the currently predominant statism. He introduced federal tax for the first time in the history of the US, closed borders for the first time in the history of the US, attacked free speech relentlessly, got the US into the war it has little business in, and overall created a regime closest to a dictatorship in the history of the US.

    2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
    His atrocious handling of the recession not only got the US into the greatest economical crisis in its history, but also created a toxic culture of people referring to the government every time any issue arises in their lives. Roosevelt was the one who put an end to the Founding Fathers' ideals of individual freedom and liberty that, up until then, were predominant in the American Society.

    3. Abraham Lincoln
    Aside from horrific, unprecedented in the American History, human right violations such as abolition of habeas corpos, forced conscriptions and unlawful taxation as means to assist the war effort, he outrageously sliced the independence of states and made everyone dependable on the central government. I am not saying Confederates were any better, but too much credit is give to the victory of the Union nowadays, that, in the end, was a federalist victory, and a loss for independence and liberty.

    4. George W. Bush
    A series of unconstitutional laws pushed through in the wake of 9/11 made the US government dangerously resemble authoritarian dictatorships around the world collecting information on their citizens, doing background checks everywhere and, overall, expanding the government into all the fields of citizen's lives.

    5. Barack Obama
    Not only did he torture the economy by destroying the last remnants of the free market and voluntarism, but he also started the horrible practice of abusing the right to invoke executive orders - one the current president successfully inherited.

    6. George Washington
    This is the guy who started it all. In the philosophical debate of the statists led by Hamilton, and libertarians led by Jefferson, Washington ultimately won the right to become the first US president - and this federalist created a lot of precedents that, over the centuries, slowly led us to where we are now.

    The best presidents would be
    1. Thomas Jefferson, who is almost solely responsible for the fact that, up until this day, the ideas of freedom and liberty still breath, even if heavily, in this society.
    2. Ronald Reagan, who managed to end the Cold War and who implemented free market reforms advocated by Milton Freedman, that were so necessary at the time.
    3. Bill Clinton, who managed to see the potential in the IT sector just in time and loosen up the market regulations in this regard - without him, chances are the current technological explosion would not have happened for a few more decades, at least.

    Trump seems pretty average to me so far. He has made a share of both abysmal and stellar decisions, and I cannot say I overall view him negatively or positively. As a person, he repels me, but that has never been my criterion for evaluating one's presidential performance.

    People like to mention JFK as a good and Nixon as a bad president. In my opinion, JFK was a good person, but a pretty mediocre president, remarkable for jos ability to waste taxpayers' money on questionable in terms of practical gain projects. Nixon was overall unremarkable, and the scandal he got into hardly changes anything: the country upon the beginning of his term was about the same as upon its end.
    Zombieguy1987
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    "Forgive slavery and genocide"?!?  What a ridiculous concept, where do you come up with this crap??  I simply don't disparage people for things they have never done, too bad you feel the need to do just that.  This selective "sins of the father" outrage is a bunch of crap.  Go down that road far enough and nobody's hands are clean.  And my "not racist" credentials don't need any help.  I support the party that fought to free the slaves, you support the party that started a war to keep slavery legal.  I support the party that fought to pass the civil rights act, you support the party that fought against it.  Your "not racist" credentials are seriously lacking (see what happens when we go down the "sins of the father" road). 

    Literally in your previous post, so stop trying to backpedal. Anyone who gives no consideration to slavery or genocide in their rankings of the worst presidents ever is pretty suspect seeing as by basic human morality of almost any modern ethical or belief system these are very bad, but you specifically said that you would refuse to judge against those people who engaged in slavery and genocide. That's not refusing to "disparage people for things they have never done" - that's refusing to condemn people for things they very much did.

    Also when your non-racist credentials are 150 years out of date, yeah - they're bad. 

    CYDdharta said:

    Unless you've been living in a cave, you're already aware 0bama's IRS has admitted wrongdoing by targeting TEA Party groups.  You should also have heard that 0bama's DOJ spied on James Rosen.  Those are just incidents that you already know about; I didn't feel the need to provide evidence of incident of which you are well aware.  0bama's corruption is well documented, it's not just my opinion.  Here is a more detailed list of 0bama using governmental agencies are political weapons;

    Oh no, investigative agencies investigated people they thought may have committed crimes, then didn't prosecute them or take action against them once they discovered crimes hadn't been committed. How terrible! Truly,has there ever been a greater miscarriage of justice in all of USA history?



    Also bad on basic facts, for instance the IRS targeting began under Bush and was stopped under Obama: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf "TIGTA found that, from August 2004 through June 2013, the IRS potentially used 259 criteria to identify tax-exempt applications for further review". Obama only became president in 2009.
    piloteerCYDdharta
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    woodrow wilson is a pretty good choice for the worst President. A couple things that you didn't mention about him, but may strengthen your resolve about him though. He embraced eugenics and believed in "genetic health", and "racial health". He also was a vocal supporter of the kkk. A quote of his made it into the kkk movie "the birth of a nation", which depicted black people as rapists and thieves. After wilson saw the movie, he said something to the effect of, "It's sad, but it's true. He also resegregated the federal government after 50 years of desegregation. He is not considered a racist by today's standards, he's considered a racist by 1913 standards. 

    MayCaesarPlaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    Ampersand said:

    Literally in your previous post, so stop trying to backpedal. Anyone who gives no consideration to slavery or genocide in their rankings of the worst presidents ever is pretty suspect seeing as by basic human morality of almost any modern ethical or belief system these are very bad, but you specifically said that you would refuse to judge against those people who engaged in slavery and genocide. That's not refusing to "disparage people for things they have never done" - that's refusing to condemn people for things they very much did.

    Also when your non-racist credentials are 150 years out of date, yeah - they're bad.

    I hope you weren't driving when you posted this cause you're all over the road.  First you say I'm wrong not to judge people who lived generations, even centuries ago, by today's standards, then you say it doesn't matter who I supported in the past because, well, that was in the past.  I know it's asking a lot for you to pick a position and stick with it.  Consistency has never been your strong suit.  Like a good leftist, you want to be able to switch positions whenever you feel it helps your argument.  Not this time.  Either past atrocities and embrace of slavery and racism is vital today, in which case you're at fault for promoting the party of slavery, racism, the Trail of Tears, Asian interments, etc.; or it's not, in which case your argument falls apart.  Which is it?

    Oh no, investigative agencies investigated people they thought may have committed crimes, then didn't prosecute them or take action against them once they discovered crimes hadn't been committed. How terrible! Truly,has there ever been a greater miscarriage of justice in all of USA history?

    Also bad on basic facts, for instance the IRS targeting began under Bush and was stopped under Obama: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf "TIGTA found that, from August 2004 through June 2013, the IRS potentially used 259 criteria to identify tax-exempt applications for further review". Obama only became president in 2009.

    Wrong again.  That the IRS evaluated cases based on certain criteria is not an issue, the issue is that 0bama's IRS corrupted those criteria to target the opposition.

    During the 2012 election cycle, some Members of Congress raised concerns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about selective enforcement and stated that Federal tax compliance efforts should be pursued without regard to politics of any kind. In addition, several organizations applying for Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) Section (§) 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status made allegations that, because of their political leanings, the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups. Soon thereafter, we conducted an audit of the process and criteria the IRS informed us it relied on for selecting potential political cases for further review from May 2010 through May 2012.

    We found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of significant potential political campaign intervention. After the IRS responded to the findings in the draft report but prior to the issuance of our final report, the Director, Exempt Organizations, appeared at an American Bar Association meeting on May 10, 2013, and stated that the IRS’s use of organization names in the title for the selection of advocacy cases was “...incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” We issued the final report on May 14, 2013, and concluded that ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

    In August 2015, the Senate Committee on Finance concluded a more than two-year investigation into the IRS’s actions and issued a bipartisan report. It found that “...from 2010 to 2013, IRS management was delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations.” It concluded that “Not only did those organizations have to withstand delays measured in years, but many also were forced to bear a withering barrage of burdensome and inappropriate “development letters” aimed at extracting information the IRS wrongly concluded was necessary to properly process the applications.”

  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    CYDdharta said:

    I hope you weren't driving when you posted this cause you're all over the road.  First you say I'm wrong not to judge people who lived generations, even centuries ago, by today's standards, then you say it doesn't matter who I supported in the past because, well, that was in the past.  I know it's asking a lot for you to pick a position and stick with it.  Consistency has never been your strong suit.  Like a good leftist, you want to be able to switch positions whenever you feel it helps your argument.  Not this time.  Either past atrocities and embrace of slavery and racism is vital today, in which case you're at fault for promoting the party of slavery, racism, the Trail of Tears, Asian interments, etc.; or it's not, in which case your argument falls apart.  Which is it?
    Let's take a comparison of your position and my position:

    My position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Judged based on their own actions

    Your position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Never judged on their own actions because you can't judge people from the past by today's standards
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions because apparently you can judge people based on the past based on today's standards when it's convenient to you
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Either judged based on their own actions or judged based on the actions of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and have no connection to them besides happening to share the same political party, even if the political party has since changed values

    My issue isn't isn't that people from a hundred and fifty years ago can't be judged by their actions, exactly the opposite, the issue is YOU want to be judged by the people of 150 years ago rather than by your actions and you want to switch up on whether people 150 ago can be judged based on their own actions depending on whether it's convenient for you.

    Feel free to apologise for being a hypocritical loudmouth at this point.

    CYDdharta said:

    Wrong again.  That the IRS evaluated cases based on certain criteria is not an issue, the issue is that 0bama's IRS corrupted those criteria to target the opposition.

    The issue you are trying to make because it's convenient for you and the actual issue are two very different things.

    You're quoting the section which talks about a past audit that didn't have a mandate to look at the whole situation and was only based around May 2010 to 2012.
    Not very shocking that if you deliberately take misleading quotes out of context that don;'t actually reference any of the work looking at what happened before 2010, they'll be misleading and it won't reference any of the work before 2010! Stop being a partisan hack for once in your life.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    CYDdharta said:

    I hope you weren't driving when you posted this cause you're all over the road.  First you say I'm wrong not to judge people who lived generations, even centuries ago, by today's standards, then you say it doesn't matter who I supported in the past because, well, that was in the past.  I know it's asking a lot for you to pick a position and stick with it.  Consistency has never been your strong suit.  Like a good leftist, you want to be able to switch positions whenever you feel it helps your argument.  Not this time.  Either past atrocities and embrace of slavery and racism is vital today, in which case you're at fault for promoting the party of slavery, racism, the Trail of Tears, Asian interments, etc.; or it's not, in which case your argument falls apart.  Which is it?
    Let's take a comparison of your position and my position:

    My position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Judged based on their own actions

    Your position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Never judged on their own actions because you can't judge people from the past by today's standards
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions because apparently you can judge people based on the past based on today's standards when it's convenient to you
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Either judged based on their own actions or judged based on the actions of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and have no connection to them besides happening to share the same political party, even if the political party has since changed values

    My issue isn't isn't that people from a hundred and fifty years ago can't be judged by their actions, exactly the opposite, the issue is YOU want to be judged by the people of 150 years ago rather than by your actions and you want to switch up on whether people 150 ago can be judged based on their own actions depending on whether it's convenient for you.

    Feel free to apologise for being a hypocritical loudmouth at this point.

    CYDdharta said:

    Wrong again.  That the IRS evaluated cases based on certain criteria is not an issue, the issue is that 0bama's IRS corrupted those criteria to target the opposition.

    The issue you are trying to make because it's convenient for you and the actual issue are two very different things.

    You're quoting the section which talks about a past audit that didn't have a mandate to look at the whole situation and was only based around May 2010 to 2012.
    Not very shocking that if you deliberately take misleading quotes out of context that don;'t actually reference any of the work looking at what happened before 2010, they'll be misleading and it won't reference any of the work before 2010! Stop being a partisan hack for once in your life.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    CYDdharta said:

    I hope you weren't driving when you posted this cause you're all over the road.  First you say I'm wrong not to judge people who lived generations, even centuries ago, by today's standards, then you say it doesn't matter who I supported in the past because, well, that was in the past.  I know it's asking a lot for you to pick a position and stick with it.  Consistency has never been your strong suit.  Like a good leftist, you want to be able to switch positions whenever you feel it helps your argument.  Not this time.  Either past atrocities and embrace of slavery and racism is vital today, in which case you're at fault for promoting the party of slavery, racism, the Trail of Tears, Asian interments, etc.; or it's not, in which case your argument falls apart.  Which is it?
    Let's take a comparison of your position and my position:

    My position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Judged based on their own actions

    Your position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Never judged on their own actions because you can't judge people from the past by today's standards
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions because apparently you can judge people based on the past based on today's standards when it's convenient to you
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Either judged based on their own actions or judged based on the actions of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and have no connection to them besides happening to share the same political party, even if the political party has since changed values

    My issue isn't isn't that people from a hundred and fifty years ago can't be judged by their actions, exactly the opposite, the issue is YOU want to be judged by the people of 150 years ago rather than by your actions and you want to switch up on whether people 150 ago can be judged based on their own actions depending on whether it's convenient for you.

    Feel free to apologise for being an utter hypocritice at this point.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 673 Pts
    edited July 3
    CYDdharta said:

    I hope you weren't driving when you posted this cause you're all over the road....
    Let's take a comparison of your position and my position:

    My position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Judged based on their own actions

    Your position:

    A genocidal racist from over a century in the past should be - Never judged on their own actions because you can't judge people from the past by today's standards
    A good guy from  from over a century in the past should be - Judged based on their own actions because apparently you can judge people based on the past based on today's standards when it's convenient to you
    A person from the modern era alive today should be - Either judged based on their own actions or judged based on the actions of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and have no connection to them besides happening to share the same political party, even if the political party has since changed values

    My issue isn't isn't that people from a hundred and fifty years ago can't be judged by their actions, exactly the opposite, the issue is YOU want to be judged by the people of 150 years ago rather than by your actions and you want to switch up on whether people 150 ago can be judged based on their own actions depending on whether it's convenient for you.

    Feel free to apologise for being an utter hypocritice at this point.

    CYDdharta said:

    Wrong again.  That the IRS evaluated cases based on certain criteria is not an issue, the issue is that 0bama's IRS corrupted those criteria to target the opposition.

    The issue you are trying to make because it's convenient for you and the actual issue are two very different things.

    You're quoting the section which talks about a past audit that didn't have a mandate to look at the whole situation and was only based around May 2010 to 2012.

    Not very shocking that if you deliberately take misleading quotes out of context and don't actually reference any of the work looking at what happened before 2010, they'll be misleading and it won't reference any of the work before 2010! Stop being a partisan hack for once in your life.
    CYDdharta
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 112 Pts
    Better question, who cares?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Andrew Jackson definitely 
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    Kevin Spacey was definitely the worst president.
    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch