ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Kitty, I am 100% with you on this. I want to see how Andrew will respond. Beware, he is a smarty.

Donkey DooZoo | 04/24/08

Andrew will utterly obliterate KCR. Obliterate.

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

Andrew, you are doing very well. Have you checked the leaderboard. Keep it up. I guess its because you are focussed on the debates, and not derailed by other stuff going on here. Good strategy.

CRISP | 04/25/08

Come on, Andrew! I'm dying to see your response.

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

After one round, I have it tied. TAW gets a slight edge based on more articulate presentation.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/26/08

Leaderboard is dumb, DonkeyDude should be number one, check out his wins. Also I disagree with KCR 100%

theyoungdem | 04/26/08

I agree with Kit, but i gotta say andrew makes the better arguement, so far.

MorgMcA | 04/26/08

KCR, you state or imply each of the following things, without any analytical support: 1) The war in Iraq should be continued, presumably because it is successful and is making us safer (despite the notion that our foreign policy in the region actually increases fundamentalist aggression towards us); 2) The Democrats' plan to withdraw will add to the chaos in Iraq somehow and will actually increase the number of terrorists (despite the fact that our presence is in itself causing chaos and, again, increasing the terrorists' fervor); 3) A Democrat president will somehow cause the economy to worsen, despite ending the war (and thus stopping the extraordinary expenses associated with it); 4) A Democrat president (presumably Obama) will cause the US to be "segregated and shunned by the rest of the world," despite the fact that every foreign entity wants Obama to win because he is a bridge-builder and not a reckless, imperialistic, moronic cowboy; and 5) A Democrat in office means raising taxes, which will "Ruin our economy" (despite the fact that it's already bad; the GOP hasn't been the model of fiscal responsibility for the last 7.5 years). If you want to win an argument against theandrewwest, you're gonna have to bolster these conclusory points.

DonkeyDude | 04/26/08

Morgan, nice job with that other debate (re: concealed weapons). We ended up tying. You definitely gave me a lot to think about with your last argument, and I felt kind of weak with my rebuttal (although I wasn't about to say so until after the voting stopped). In the end, you've caused me to be on the fence on that issue and not just blindly take a gun control position. That's what this site is all about, right? :-) At the very least, I want to research the facts about gun control's correlation with violence. Stats on this matter are frequently dubious because of its highly divisive nature, so I want to find an unbiased source. Any ideas of where to look?

DonkeyDude | 04/26/08

Given the topic i don't think there is any unbiased information out there, probably the best course of action would be to go to several sources, that seem reliable, on both sides and see which makes more sense. however if i may recommend a start. as i said i realized that most shooting were taking place in "gun-free zones". then two days later i saw on CNN.com a grass roots organization trying to allow students to carry on colledge campuses. their link is www.concealedcampus.com, while i didn't use any arguements seen there, SCCC was the inspiration for posting the topic. BTW for the record, i don't own a gun, but i wouldn't mind doing so, it's just it's expensive.

MorgMcA | 04/26/08

Cool, thanks Morgan. I checked that site out, and it does a good job of laying out the arguments (not to take anything away from your impressive debate performance). I may just be a convert here.

DonkeyDude | 04/26/08

KCR's second two paragraphs in his or her rebuttal were very well presented. Much stronger rebuttal than opening argument. I know some specifics could have been there, but the logical processes of what she said were historically accurate. Nice job.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/27/08

Actually the third paragraph was specific enough. Kudos.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/27/08

Umm.. OK. But (re: the third paragraph) by pulling out of the war, we wouldn't have to raise taxes to have a positive fiscal impact (reduce deficit spending). And the only effective tax increase being proposed (that I'm aware of) are the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the very highest earners, which will not impact the majority of consumers, so no - people will not cut back on spending. Although it would actually be a good thing if we increased our savings rate. And your foreign-goods importation point reveals a lack of understanding of macroeconomic theory. A country is better off when it is a net exporter of goods, which we are not. Cutting back on the importation of goods would be great.

DonkeyDude | 04/27/08

I would be all for the reduction of imported goods, if it is because american products can be made more competively, but if it's because of tariffs, trade barriers, or a sudden reduction of interest in the american market, then that is a bad thing. i think Kit was refering mostly to latter causes for the import reduction.

MorgMcA | 04/27/08

Raising and cutting taxes for some, but not for others, doesn't work. When will people realize this?

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/27/08

Kitty, you're dumb. You're just going with the same manufactured arguments all the republicans use because you have no ideas/beliefs/opinions of your own. There was no al qaedah presence in Iraq before our invasion, and our presence there has opened up a hole for them to creep in.

papabear | 04/27/08

The market determines the imports, too. If you want to stop exporting jobs and importing cheap goods, people have to stop wanting the cheapest prices for state-of-the-art goods. The market determines this. And if you make the highest percentage of employers in the country pay a significantly higher number of taxes, guess where they'll make cuts to compensate? And that will only encourage more need for cheaper goods, which will be imported. So don't eliminate tax cuts for some, but not for others. Keep them for everyone.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/27/08

Kitty, you're not dumb. But come strong in your last rebuttal. TAW will probably have a better rebuttal than opening counterargument.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/27/08

From a registered "unaffiliated" independent longitudinal voter who did not vote when it was only (in my view--found out in 2000 that Nader was there, I did not know it) between Clinton and Bush--I desisted. No vote tendered. I did not vote for Clinton. I did not want Clinton and definitely not Bush. But, on point here, a Green party delegate in Cambridge, who wanted me to b a delegate for the Greens for Nader's nomination (he was draft status, but party politics and other causes netted his official hat in the race as an Independent Candidate, "unaffiliated/undeclared" party. He is running on his track record and platforms, and, oh yes, competitive credentials.) That Green delegate when I told him a Democrat said to me (a woman, blonde), "Now is not the time (for Nader)"--His retort, angrily, IF NOT NOW, WHEN!?!!!" So true. How dare you not be ready for the necessary change when the public CAN VOTE FOR THE CHANGE THEY CLAIM THEY WANT? My added comment. Easier to stick with the simple decent fair enough question, "IF NOT NOW, WHEN?" How about that?

Elizabeth | 05/01/08