Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

----In Defense of My Arguments---- 1) My first argument--that we would not know who was writing the text for the debate--still stands. My opponent attempts to refute this by saying that, "We presently know that the candidates typically do not make their own arguments, especially during debates," and goes on to say, ". .. even if they didn't write what they said, they had to hire the guy who did. .. " However, what my opponent has completely forgotten is the manner in which the arguments are presented. Take for instance the famous John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon debate in which Nixon became nervous, sweaty, and unsure of himself. Through this, we not only learned that Nixon was a bad public speaker, but was intellectually inferior as well. If that debate had been on the Internet, all that would have been needed for Nixon to "win", would have been for him to hire a better debater thus obscuring the truth about his inferiority. The manner in which debates are fought is extremely important in determining who we want as president. On the Internet, we would not know who is writing the arguments. Thus we should not have presidential debates on the Internet. 2) My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands. My opponent writes, "It would. .. be quickly discovered, and for that matter a huge news event, which would correct itself. The people who actually pay attention to the debates aren't the ones who fail to hear the memo about obvious falsehoods. " Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided. I know I can prove that internet databases (including those for the CIA website) have been hacked. So prove it. Until then, that counterargument must be ignored. 3) My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands. He starts off by saying that these 30% of Americans could just go to their public libraries. However, this is simply not practical. Imagine: 100 million Americans rushing to libraries and having to wait their turn. Obviously, this will not happen. But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed. 4) My fourth argument--that reading for hours is harder than watching for an hour--still stands. My opponent writes that, "Reading can be broken up into chunks, and done at ANY TIME. The debates are broadcast once or twice (and) cannot be broken into chunks. " Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds. Can my opponent honestly assert that just as many Americans will want to read debates as much as they want to watch them? Reading is slightly more active, and will create a disincentive for many Americans to get informed. My opponent has missed my point entirely, and so it still stands. 5) My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it was never addressed. ----Counterarguments---- My opponent's entire argument relies on one single point. That argument is epitomized in: "Imagine a debate where the resolution has to do with the tactical prosecution of the war in Iraq, and I start, unprompted, to talk about how much respect I have for the troops without ever answering the question. It would look kind of silly on debate. org, everyone would notice, and rightly so. Yet that is the state of the average presidential debate. " To that, I ask my opponent to stop being condescending to Americans. Americans realize when they are being deceived. Americans know when candidates don't answer their questions. Americans ARE able to critically analyze a candidate's answers. And most of all, Americans are NOT stupid. My opponent's entire argument lies in the lie that Americans will not be able to understand evasion when they hear it: "It is, quite simply, harder to evade in text. " Once again, I'll ask my opponent (who bears the burden of proof) to prove it. Prove that Americans are incapable of critical analysis. Only then can you win this debate. Thank you for your time.