The GOP should change their party symbol from the elephant to Yosemite Sam

Seems we're at the point of the debate where con just straight up misrepresents my arguments or misses the point completely. I went ahead and skipped over con's responses that werent even relevant to the debate, or trie to derail the argument being made completey (which there was a lot of)1) Representation of traditional values"changing a symbol that represents your beliefs and values isnt very traditional. "The point here was that Yosemite Sam better represents the values that the Republican Party stands for than the current symbol of an elephant. The better fit of Yosemite Sam as the GOP symbol over the elephant also outweighs any of that representation that is lost simply by switching from one party symbol to another. "The republican party wouldn't have too many traditional Christians in it, would it? "The GOP would be changing its symbol from an atheist or pagan elephant to a God-fearing cowboy who routinely requests adversary's to say their prayers right before executing the death penalty on them. Traditional christians have no reason to be opposed to Yosemite Sam over the current GOP symbol"The republicans are predicated on not changing"The Republican party updates its position on issues more frequently than con would like you to believe. Conservatives certainly aren't pro slavery anymore, or pro segregation of races, conservatives are not opposed to letting women vote either. .. Changing the party symbol one time in over a hundred years wont somehow make the GOP no longer the party of steadfast tradition, especially since they would be changing the symbol to Yosemite Sam, a character who has existed since 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org...2) Representation of force"Furthermore, our country's security is under no threat by mice"Yet elephants are still scared of them. Does it sound good for the GOP to be represented by a symbol who is scared of things that are completely harmless? I think not. "How many things has Yosemite successfully shot with those baby pistols? "The accuracy of the pistols is not an issue here, its the fact that he HAS the pistols as his weapon in the first place which is an issue, since it is the fact that he has pistols which makes him a better fit for representing the GOP than an elephant, which only has tusks. "If the symbol is to represent a massive immovable global power"The symbol is meant to embody EVERYTHING about the GOP. While Yosemite Sam certainly isn't 'perfect' in representing every value of the GOP, the argument here is that he would BETTER represent the GOP than an elephant does. ..3) Changing the symbol"Yosemite Sam is therefore not a symbol that the republicans should rally behind; to change their long standing symbol would be to change"^ This here is the one argument that con keeps falling back on. Con refuses to acknowledge that Yosemite Sam would be be a better representation of the GOP than an elephant, since to do so would mean conceding the debate, so instead simply repeats the same claim over and over that changing their symbol to ANYTHING else would suddenly make the GOP unrepresentative of being traditional. What if the GOP changed their symbol to an eagle? Or of Jesus waving an American flag? To think that those symbols would somehow be LESS representative of the Republican Party than an elephant just because the act of switching symbols is not being 'traditional' in the first place is a desperate and unfounded claim to make, and the same goes with changing the symbol to Yosemite Sam. We are not debating if Yosemite Sam perfectly represents the GOP, we are about if he would BETTER represent the GOP values than an elephant, and also provide more benefits to the party than the current elephant symbol as well. .. Yosemite Sam appeals to a younger of generation of voter than the Elephant does not, and Yosemite Sam better represents a majority of the GOP's beliefs than an elephant as well, via gun rights, religiousosity, pro death penalty, use of force, etc.