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

First off you stated: "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 i do agree that most americans would easily recognize a personal attack, you have to consider the Independents and easily swayed voters. According to . http://www.fivethirtyeight.com..., Obama is leading by only 2.1%. He cant afford to lose the independents or easily swayed Voters. While the personal attacks on a valid plan would be apparent to most, you have to look at the outlier group that could be adversely affected in terms of obama and cost him the race. *So inorder to maintain his lead indefinitely, he made the right coice in straying away from these Risky Town Hall debates. -- Second you made the statement that: "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" -- Once again, either way the debates turn out, one candidate is going to suffer in decrease in popularity. With Obama consistently in the lead throughout the entire Race he has no reason to jeapordize that in a town hall debate. You say that obama could be considered inexpierienced on these issues. Obama's trips to the middle east, discussions with foreign leaders, and rallies have given him more than enough credibility. But on the other Hand, many voters prefer a candidate that hasnt been around washington. President Bush's Policies over the last 8 years have caused us to enter an economic and milityary downturn. Voters want someone who has knowledge on the issues but at the same time, a new view one the world. *While he could lose credibilty, it is just as logical, if not more plausible, that he could gain votes for being somewhat of a maverick and different from the past administrations. -- Third: "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" -- Potential for the Debates to spawn Credible questions is just as likely for the the debates to spwan detrimental questions that could hurt both candidates images. The candiates holding rallies and taking questions independently yields for a greater chance to build comprehensive plans to better the country, without the clutter of embarrasing questions from the voters of the opposing candidate. SO it seems that becuase the respectives candidates could get more out of independently campaigning than rallying, that obama made the right choice on turning down the potentially counter productive debates. Finally, "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. " -- It seems superflous that they "work together" if only one candidate is to enter the oval office. They have completely differences stance and harbor a great deal of animosity towards each other.