Fox NEWS' Varney: Obama offering free preschool so toddlers will vote for him

I see the following argument presented. If this interpretation is in error, I invite Pro to correct me. P1: Varney should not be punished for being an entertaining editorialist P2: Varney’s job is very likely that of an entertainer, and not strictly a journalist. I support this analysis of Con’s argument with the following statements: You can be right or wrong, a famous television producer once told me, just don't be boring. It doesn't matter if the second analyst turns out to be wrong or the first analyst turns out to be right. What matters is that he gave good quote and she didn't. Was he right or wrong? Certainly. Was he boring? Absolutely not. I agree with these statements, enthusiastically. My point in instigating this debate was to underscore the role that Fox NEWS plays as entertaining editorializing… a role that necessarily decays its role as a trustworthy, accurate source for unbiased news. We both agree here. Pro concedes that Varney “had a guess” (his words), and was not relying on facts; but on his ability to say shocking things and outrage liberals. It is happy when two parties in debate can come together in agreement and mutual comity. Debates with disagreements are more entertaining, and happily, there are a few areas of discordance. Here’s one example: Con argues that the resolution of the debate is to draw attention to the hyperbole of Fox NEWS. The network often allows its pundits to overspeak with impunity. It’s not. The resolution was: Is the sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K to entice affected voters to vote for him? (See R1 and R2 for proof. ) [1] It is splitting hairs to argue that President Obama will not run for elected office in the future, since he may endorse a candidate. It is splitting hairs. I am a jerk like that. My resolution specifically named Obama, and this was intentional. (Because Varney specifically named Obama; so he started it first. ) Varney’s entertaining statement was, at last, grossly inaccurate. Varney stated – inequitably – that the reason for universal, high quality preschool was to entice votes for Obama. [2] Varney did not say that Obama was attempting to win up votes for other candidates, or for the Democrats, or the Socialists… if he had, I might have given this debate a miss. As it stands, the statement made by respected Fox NEWS’s own Stuart Varney, was just silly. I want to keep the debate tightly focused on the exact, specific statement, as it was made, in order to highlight this. [3] It remains possible that Obama may run for elected office, and so Varney might have been correct. If Obama runs for office again, I will go back and admit that I was wrong all along. However, based on the best information available at present, he will not. Moreover, Varney can’t be intentionally correct: he was only trying to insult and minimize the idea of allowing access to high quality preschool to American children as just another cheap political gimmick. (It may be a cheap political gimmick. But it has to be specifically a cheap political gimmick designed to attract votes to President Obama… who cannot be voted for again. ) It is outrageous to suggest that other reasons for advocating for preschool must be ruled out before we can be certain that President Obama was only attempting to bribe voters with the idea. Not as outrageous as all of that. Remember, Varney was very, very clear in his accusation. He portrayed the Presidents advocacy of universal pre k as only a bribe, with no possibility of any other motivation. Later in the clip, he even returned to the canard of “free cellphones” to make his point absolutely clear. There are very few semantic games that can be used to twist Varney’s words into anything else. Which is why I took such a fixation to the statement. This argument is about whether it was fair of Varney to make the assessment he did: that politicians, including Obama, do stuff for votes. First, an “argument” is a series of statements, called premises, with one of these premises being a “conclusion” that is required by the others. It is not a synonym for “verbal fight. ” The argument that I have presented is: P1: President Obama may have proposed access to high quality preschool for reasons other than to attract votes to him. P2: President Obama cannot attract votes to himself, because he is unable to run for President again, and is not likely to run for elected office P3/Conclusion: The sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K is NOT to entice affected voters to vote for him As for the argument that politicians, including Obama, do stuff for votes, again we are in happy agreement. They do. President Obama has been so good at doing stuff that he won an overwhelming majority of votes in the final election that he will ever participate in. Conclusion: My Argument, as of this round, is: P1: President Obama may have proposed access to high quality preschool for reasons other than to attract votes to him. If any of these are the case, then Obama did not make his proposal only as a form of bribery. P2: President Obama cannot attract votes to himself, because he is unable to run for President again, and is not likely to run for elected office P3/Conclusion: The sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K is NOT to entice affected voters to vote for him Sources: [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.elyrics.net... [3] . http://www.elyrics.net...