A political candidate's demographic should not affect the way one votes.

While you have missed the debate deadline twice, I will still take your arguments into account (readers-It's in the comment area). " I will concur with your definition of demographic, except in the last cases of general belief system (for this is exactly what I'm trying to assert, that they should take issues and beliefs into account) and profession (obviously a successful buinessnman or lawyer is more palatable than an uneducated farmer or paralegal)." -It is true you did not clearly define what you believed was the meaning of demographics, or what you intended to debate it as, and it is a bit irresponsible to come into the third round of play and alter the true meaning of demographics for your purpose. The fact is that occupation, and beliefs (as in beliefs outside of the political realm) are parts of demography. If you specifically meant religion, race, and sex you should have made this known in one of the 3 rounds of debate. Demography comes from the Greek roots demo, which refers to people, and graph-which refers to the measure of, or study of. So it is clear that it is the study of people, and beliefs should be taken into account, because the very definition includes beliefs (whether political, cultural, or social). Also, as I stated before beliefs offer specific insight into the judgment of a person. "As for your arguments involving the example of the Satanist that supports child sacrifice"…" you seem to dissenting from the question at hand, for you fail to realise that as a proponent of child sacrifice he or she is suggesting a potential policy that could effect educational reforms, a legitimate political issue."…" If a person of said religion however believed in pushing their ecclesiastical values on the citizenry than one should become wary of the way their believes are effecting policy." -As I've stated before, (may not have been clear to you) "this shows a definite lapse in judgment, no matter his stance on primary political issues. It shows a differing belief system that is too important to ignore…". What I meant is, although you may agree with the candidate on current national policies (the truth is only a few are talked about these days: Iraq, Immigration, etc.)if he/she has beliefs that are questionable in their "private" lives, and they are of concern to you, you have the right to withhold your vote. Whether they are pushing their beliefs on the public or not, their beliefs should be examined. We can't allow hypocrisy and poor judgment in the White House, because the truth is that candidates will accentuate and obscure their beliefs in order to propel themselves forward toward election. (btw-education reforms was a joke) "…if an Independent LDSer in North Dakota looks at Romney as sees the opportunity to put a brother of the faith in the White House and casts her ballot for this reason, that is immoral." -If the North Dakota "LDSer" believed that putting a "brother of the faith" in the WH would be beneficial to the U.S. in any way, it would not be immoral. If a voter thought Romney has "really nice hair" it is fine for that person to vote accordingly, because each voter sets their own standards for a president. We vote based on our perceptions of people, and it is impossible to cast a vote and totally disregard demographics. All views, of any kind are formed on bias; our experiences and situations determine our beliefs, and seeing as we cannot experience everything we have bias. Besides, a big part of qualifications for presidency, is the past actions (personal life too), personal beliefs, etc…We don't just vote on issues, because is important to see what type of person the candidate is outside of his political life. …"If however they don't do their research and vote instead for Obama, they have just negated their intention for false hopes, thus leading to their own losses." -I will only negate this, because it sums up your position, and is your strongest argument. There is no way to determine whether Obama, or Clinton will be more effective in promoting the success of inner-city African Americans (their views don't vary that greatly on many of the related issues), but if a voter recognizes that Obama maybe better equipped to handle this problem as an African American, "all's fair"…Or if a candidate comes from an inner-city background, it's fair to assume. Reason's you should vote neg: -I refuted every point brought forward by my opponent. -I presented arguments within the time constraints. -My opponent did not thoroughly address points and examples: 1a, 1b, 2b, 3a, &4 (reread), and pre-rebuttals. -I believe I presented a strong case considering the topic, and the fact that I disagree with every argument I presented. Please don't vote based on your opinions, vote on strength of presentation, arguments, and overall ability. I urge the readers to vote neg (I will, lol). Thanks Farooq. It's been a pleasure, and I enjoyed reading your previous debates. -MDB