Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates

By the way, I would hardly consider my opponent's response "late. " For this site, all are entitled to three days to respond. I, myself, often wait a long duration as well. "Yes, in an ideal world the purpose of the debates is to better americas future and such but as you can see in a "Time" article of August fourth, When obama set fourth solutions to gas mileage to help america with the current fuel problem, mccain ridiculed him and to this day has the "joke" on his website. This demonstrates that Obama's legitimate attempts to establish better fuel mileage in america were undermined by John McCains unwarranted attacks. " Indeed, I understand that the world might not be considered ideal at the time. However, this point is, society should TRY to better itself, and by accepting proposals to debate is a valid method of doing so. As for Obama's idea regarding gas mileage, many individuals (mostly liberals) in the society realize that Obama's plan is valid and logical. For McCain to have criticized Obama for this plan was completely ridiculous. However, if the two were to just briefly debate the manner, even more members of society could see that one is ridiculing an absolutely valid proposal. Many Americans realize personal attacks presented by politicians, and often choose to ignore them as illogical, counteracting little of their opponent's argument. "While the candidates could better themselves in these Debates, the risk seems far too high considering obama is only a margin ahead. As you can see in McCains television ad where he compares Obama to britney spears. The risk can also be found when he distorts obamas trip to the middle east. As the past records of ads and commentary suggest, obama going into these town meeting with McCain would most likely lead to McCain having an open forum to attack and distort obamas image, so considering obama is consistently ahead it would only prove beneficial to engage in Town Hall debates" There are two potential conclusions. Either Obama, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates, or McCain, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates. If Obama does better, the results would be clearly obvious, thus ameliorating the rating. If McCain does better, the results would again be clearly obvious, causing a more readily decrease in Obama's favorable rating. Thus, logically, the better candidate would most likely result on top in the polls. As a note, in order to truly distinguish who won a debate, the opposing member(s) would optimally obtain mutual agreement. If not obtained, there is obviously more to be stated, thus resulting in further debate. It often takes a while for mutual agreement to be reached on a variety of issues, but extensive views and issues can more readily be shared and debated with more available time, as would be given with such proposed debates. Again, the society can often tell if a candidate is merely throwing personal attacks or truly offering argumentation regarding an issue deemed important. As well, one ought to look at what could be lost by Obama not accepting such debates. For example, many might consider Obama inexperienced on the issues (not necessarily true) for declining requests to debate. By accepting McCain's debates, Obama would be able to point out, if necessary, any personal attacks made by opponents. "With the audience asking questions it could lead to compromising situations for Barack Obama. This was demonstrated in the Abc Hilary-Barack Debate where one voter mailed in a video-question asking "Why doesnt senator obama wear a flag lapel? " While many voters are eager to see how the candidates will fix the economy and end the war in Iraq. .. , there will be a large majority of voters [attached to their] respective candidate who are willing to ask embarrasing or ridiculous questions. " Well, first of all, it is often difficult for a single individual to tell what is most important. It remains rather arbitrary. As well, in a general sense, Obama and McCain could still begin by debating what society considers most relevant for the country initially, and then later take questions from the audience. Another point resides in the POTENTIAL for relevant questions to be asked. Without debating at all, such a potential would not occur. However, with the debates happening, such a potential, inevitably, does indeed exist. "As i have said before, in an ideal world debates benefit society, but unfortunately we live in a little thign called reality. .. .Senator Barack obama has held rallies where he as answered questions and affirmed his stances. It would be superflous and counterproductive to put himself in a situation that could potentially sway some of his voters to McCain. " The point is, again, regardless of how much gets accomplished through the debates, it still ameliorates the potential for further gain for both the candidates and the society alike. Basically, Obama holds rallies and McCain holds rallies. And one candidate affirms one idea, and the other a different one, while both attack the other. Little gets accomplished this way. A real, meaningful debate between opposing members would much more likely accomplish so much more, allowing the society to progress much more readily. Indeed, Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates, according to all the reasons given and cited. Thus, logic dictates a PRO vote. I would also ask that potential voters give reasoning in regards to their respective votes.