Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

--In Defense of My First Argument-- My first argument--that through textual internet debates, the audience would not know who is writing--still stands. "I've heard many insults tossed at Nixon... but intellectually inferior?" I'm not going to mention all the scandals Nixon was involved with (*cough* Watergate). Nor am I going to mention all of John F. Kennedy's great accomplishments as president of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Instead, I will concede my statement that Kennedy was smarter than Nixon. I do this, of course, because it is irrelevant to this debate. It's a wonder why my opponent fixated his attention (for my first point) to such a small area of my argument. Moving on though... "It means (Nixon) isn't good at choreographing (his) movements, controlling (his) appearance, and whatnot..." I'm glad we can agree. Here my opponent states that Nixon was a very bad public speaker. "The mere fact that you could draw the conclusion that Nixon was less intelligent than Kennedy from the televised debates is proof of a weakness in them." No, no, no, no. You are missing the fact that Nixon was a terrible speaker. Through Internet debates, we would not have learned that. And speaking skills is an essential quality that every president should have--just look at how harshly people make fun of President Bush! Because of Bush's lack of public speaking skills, he is often looked at as a brainless donkey to other nations. A president should have the abilities to rally the people, make strong convincing arguments, and not cower in the face of other speakers. Both Bush and Reagan are bad public speakers. Shouldn't one's speaking skills be exposed and NOT hidden? Having Internet debates would hide such abilities. And thus my argument that we would not know who was performing the debates online still stands. --In Defense of My Second Argument-- My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands. All my opponent does to counterargue this point, is to pick apart my statement "Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided." He writes that, "I don't have to prove that zero voters would be misguided. Zero voters aren't misguided now," and other such gibberish. However, he again evades my point. Surely, if the debate website was hacked, a significant amount of voters would be misguided. And no, television debates do not lead more people to be misguided. Again, Americans are not stupid. We can comprehend and critically analyze what we hear. However, what if what we heard was not from whom we thought? It is certainly possible, if not likely! The CIA has had its contents hacked AND CHANGED numerous times. Imagine though, a website that would reach even more people. That would be like honey to a swarm of bees! And what if the hackers insert a virus like some hackers did recently to Wikipedia (http://en.wikinews.org...)? That would be disastrous! My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands. --In Defense of My Third Argument-- My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands. "You forgot the possibility of publishing transcripts." First, publishing 100 million transcripts (or 50 million if you take out the ones who don't vote) is simply impractical. Why fix something that isn't broken?-- TV is fine! Second, YOU forget about the deterrent of reading when compared. You completely do not address my statement that reads, "But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed." He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point. --In Defense of My Fourth Argument-- My fourth argument--that reading for hours is harder than watching for an hour--still stands. ALL my opponent does to argue this point is by disputing, "Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds." Okay, I concede that statement? I never meant that as an argument. Obviously; look at the wording. Instead, my opponent completely misses the rest of my argument that reads: "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." He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point. --In Defense of My Fifth Argument-- My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it is still unaddressed. "This contradicts your later idea that 'Americans know when they are being deceived,' make up your mind :D." Yes, Americans understand when they are being deceived when they get to hear the arguments first hand, NOT twisted by some pundit's diatribe. Like I said, reading is a disincentive to many Americans to be informed. These Americans will not be able to experience the debates firsthand, and will be unable to know the truth. ----Counterarguments and Conclusion---- "And note these were just the best liars they could get for the study who were trying to fool them. Researchers." This complete "study" you speak of is completely unverifiable... mainly because we (the audience and I) have no idea what study you are talking about. I could be blind, but I see no sources. Everything falling under this evidence must be ignored. My opponent continues to confirm his belief that Americans are stupid. If Americans are stupid, as you believe, then they would not be able to comprehend hours and hours of debate material. It takes a lot of intelligence to analyze pages worth of facts and material. Surely you may want to consider that statement. My opponent goes on to point out many public scandals to prove that those who dislike the scandaler may have once liked the person, and thus had been deceived. However, how does that prove that electronic presidential debates are better? In conclusion, my opponent has only provided one argument this whole entire debate. That argument is that there would be much more actual debate (and less emotion) on the Internet. In contrast, I have provided five arguments that I believe I have successfully defended. I'd like to thank my opponent once more for accepting this debate, and good night. God knows we all need rest. I leave my opponent the floor. *snoozes*