ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I THOUGHT I'D CHALLENGE THE ONLY GUY ON HERE WITH A LANDSLIDE WINNING TRACK RECORD. I SEE THAT YOU ARE THE UNDEFEATED COMPETITOR AND YOU ARE TIRED OF SAME OLD POLITICS. HOW ABOUT PUTTING UP YOUR BEST DEBATE SKILLS AND TAKING THE OTHER STANCE AND LIKING THE SAME OLD POLITICS?

PSU Student | 02/20/08

Glad to see you back on the debate circuit, HAHA. Can't wait to hear these arguments.

Austhus | 02/20/08

Hmm, two debates on basically the same topic (I'm participating in the other one). Should be interesting. Let's see if we manage not to plagiarize from each other :)

Lib Expat | 02/20/08

OK fine I'll bite. First, your challenge states that Obama's chances for victory lie not with his policy proposals or track record, but with demographics and the mysterious word known as "change." So let's talk about that. The Obama campaign seats most of its speeches in platitudes called "change" and "hope" without giving much of a definition for either. It would be "change" for anyone who isnt Bush to be the next president, but thats self-evident. I worry about politicians who use bromides and not arguments. It says something about the American electorate, and to some extent the media, when the things we hear most about Obama are how people swoon and faint at his rallies as if he were the first coming of the Beatles or the Second Coming of Christ. At least the Beatles had songs we knew they would play, and we can look at the Bible in case JC shows up. You can't see where Obama's been, but you can look at where he'd like to go with his blueprint, and I'll argue that with you if you want to bring it up. it's got a few good ideas and some really horrific ones. When you say "We can't live by the methods our ancestors did 200 years ago" I don't know what you mean. Are you attacking the political machines of our founding fathers, who sometimes settled disputes through dueling? Or do you mean we cannot base today's government on the founding document it was built upon, the Constitution? Because if you want to have a separate debate about a living constitution I will gladly go toe to toe on that. The Constitution laid out freedoms: freedoms FROM government interference. It was based upon the concepts of life, liberty, and property. If your change seeks to remove any of that, I want none of it. I agree with you changes are necessary. Our people have become weak, largely seeing themselves as victims, and ignoring the fact that most people have the tool necessary to better themselves: a functioning mind. We have little cultural ties to bind us: we are driven apart by a balkanized media and identity politics. For the past eight years the damnable red and blue map concept has turned us into "two Americas" to borrow from John Edwards. The American electorate is largely ignorant about what is truly going on: they rely on their radios, tvs, and blogs to tell them things while not making any effort to find things out for themselves. These are the things we need changes from. Change in and of itself won't get anything done. Hope without action won't accomplish anything, either. Young college kids who think they know everything who hear someone who is vocally trying to sound like MLK while biting from JFK aren't a political movement. They're lemmings responding to a siren song.

HAHAHAOHWOW | 02/20/08

PSU, when you make a claim, you should back it up.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/28/08

one month! come on hurry up and respond!

HAHAHAOHWOW | 03/29/08

Hahahaohow maybe you should respond, because it kind of is cheating for you to just leave the debate suspended for seven months so you can stay on the leaderboard. :-)

SCai | 10/10/08