No more complicated answers to simple questions!!!

Hello to my opponent. I am going to begin this topic by addressing the premises of my opponent's case, and then moving on to my own contentions. My opponent says that questions should have simple answers. Lets examine his structure. Claim: His claim is very clear, and establishes a base for moving into evidence. Warrant: Here is where my opponent's case falls. He has good links back to the topic (it is clearly topical) and a clear claim, but no backing. In fact, his entire premise relies on what is known as a "logical fallacy" - an inherantly flawed form of argument. We offer the following excerpt from the Don Lindsay Archive of Fallicious Arguments on Arguments by Question: ========== Argument By Question: Asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?" Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it. Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... ======= What this means is that some situations have no clear answer - there is no snappy way to summarize the proper response to a question. But this does not detract from the answer - in fact, in many cases, this is a good thing. It prevents society from trivializing processes - because the processes are long and arduous, they help build character, loyalty to the process, and endurance. A constant supply of "snappy answers" leads to sound bite society - which no one can argue is good. Lets look to the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. Each debate lasted approximately _eight_ hours. They got into the hearts of the issues, and made clear to the American public their stances on issues critical to the nation's continuance. And look what this process came out with: one of the best presidents ever to grace the American Presidency. No snappy answers. No sound bites. This was a production of discussions that got to the meat of how America should be run. Now, however, candidates in debates are limited to responses that are less than one minute. They cannot truly focus on the issues, because to compete with each other, they must try to one-up each other for "the better sound bite". It becomes a publicity affair, rather than a true debate - at the cost of the American public. Link: There is a clear link to the topic. Impact: My opponent does not provide any reason that we should consider this important. It begs the question, "And if we don't have simple answers, what happens?" My opponent does not provide any impact, so at the very worst, if all of my argumentation falls, you should not vote for Pro because the idea that Pro is advocating, (if turned into a true reality) would have no positive effect on reality. Also, there are no Con impacts either - why voting Con would cause a problem in society if this was true - so for this reason, vote Pro. As to my opponent's specific examples. The current process of Presidential primaries is critical to electing our nations leaders. Problems my opponent claims - Primaries are done slowly: Yes! This allows low-budget true Americans, and not just the rich upper-class to run for the Highest Office. By staggering the primaries, candidates who could not have previously had a chance now legitimately stand to win states - look at Mike Huckabee and Iowa. Had he been forced to divide his resources (and his time) between 50 states simultaneously, he would have been spread too thin to make an impact. However, because of the staggered times, he came out from behind to _win_ a major voting state. Superdelegates: Are absolutely necessary. First, they have never, ever voted against the will of the people. Second, they only exist in the Democratic party. Third, the are critical to maintaining the will of the people. In what a cataclysm known as "crossing-over", people from other parties will register to an opposing party, and vote for the candidate they find easiest to defeat - best serving the interest of their own party, while screwing the Democrats over. They have also been known to advertise for an opposing party's candidate - to siphon off votes from the majority leader. This is where superdelegates come in - they are the most educated and knowledgeable about the issues surrounding the democratic party - that's why they're superdelegates. In case something like this ever occurred, the Superdelegates serve as an iron wall to ever prevent their party from being eroded unjustly by opponents. In reality, Superdelegates are a tool to preserve the voice and best interest of the people, not to silence it. Simplicity is not always the best, especially when it forces corners to be cut in answering questions. To evolutionists: Can you provide me with a succinct explanation of how matter can come out of nothing? ======== My loaded question leaves you at a multiple disadvantage - it attacks you, then your point of view. To actually answer this question, you would first have to explain how the question is flawed, and then how there is no succinct explanation, but there is science developed to support the theory of micro and macroevolution. ======== To creationists: Why should I believe some random guy (who didn't even speak!) just poofed the universe into existence? ===== Again, my question attacks you and your point of view. If you answered succinctly, and did not address my question, there IS no right answer. This is why you must, like with the evolutionists, explain the flawed wording of the question, then how there is science developed to support the theory of creationism, or how you just take it on faith. ====== My point in illustrating this is that sometimes, there are no succinct answers. This is especially true in questions that define the identity of the human race, the human condition, the creation of the world, religion, political affairs, governmental theories, democracy...the list goes on. When voting on this round, view how only using simple answered leads to a sound bite society, and how it leaves some of the most important questions in the world impossible to answer. View how the complexity and duration of the primary system actually helps no-name candidates to put themselves out there. In light of these issues, I ask a Con vote. Thank you.