2012 Presidential Debate: Wily vs. Light

My fellow citizens, while my opponent should be commended on having many ideas about the future, his arguments come from that of an idealist that suffers from a lack of applied science. This type of thinking, while useful in shaping basic outlines of policy, can only prove detrimental without logical conclusive thought. Let us again re-examine the economic policies put forth. My opponent's dashing use of rhetoric has attempted to skirt even the most basic tenets of cost analysis. First, he admits to the high cost of initial production but then insists that the product will be entirely devoted to the creation of new robots by those very same robots. The most basic and fundamental questions immediately arise, what about material costs? Are we to assume these machines are never to break down or falter, requiring costly repairs? You can ask any scientist in the world and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the idea that more sophisticated technology inherently costs more revenue for start-up and repair. It is a simple fact of life that my opponent tries to ignore much like he does with having a solid energy plan. He begins his attack on my energy plan with a vicious slander of me owing my livelihood to Big Coal. It is quite shocking that someone who I had considered a partner for so long would clearly not know a single thing about me, despite saying it in my previous speech. My father worked til the day he died in coal mines, and I have since dedicated my life to finding ways around that, Albert knows it, as do all of you by just looking at a cursory glance of my scientific history. Why is this such a big deal? Because friends, these type of nonconstructive attacks are the very definition of the short-sided thinking that Dr.Wily embodies. His plan is based on a complete overhaul of everything to be replaced by robotics while continuing the current path of energy as is? This is a concrete example of lofty ideas running away without logic. Contrast this to my plan which utilizes robotic technology as tools rather than the entire workforce itself. A simpler solution, based on incremental change backed by a more robust dedication towards new forms of energy and education in those fields. Regarding my claim of overseas robotic production, my opponent again skirts the issue at hand. He discusses the idea that countries that originate technology enjoy dominance, however this misses the point again entirely. My initial critique of this plan is that robots are not new technology. A number of breakthroughs in the industry have come out of Japan already and much research has been done in parts of Europe as well. While the United States certainly has the capability to become a leader in this field (which I strongly advocate as evidenced by my education plan), it however will never have complete dominance in this field, nor is that something we should truly desire in the first place. America is a great nation on it's own, it does not need strangleholds on technology to stay that way, and this type of thinking is clearly detrimental in the long run as evidenced by the Cold War and nuclear proliferation in general. Furthermore, he contradicts himself in saying that our current shortcomings in the energy field are related to a failure of capability and failure of human will. Yet, he goes on to say assert we do have the capabilities to usher in a bold new robotic age. The contradictory nature of these statements is astounding. Looking deeper into the way he has phrased his argument based entirely on the innovations of himself and I. There is no true we in the world that Dr. Wily has presented to you and it is evidenced by each argument. He does not argue that he wishes to devote more precious resources to creating machines of death and destruction. Dr. Wily chalks it up to the greater good, however this line of thinking is destructive in the long-term. Instead, why not from the very beginning create machines that promote peace and ease burdens while not detracting from freedom? The cryptic idea of machines that only hurt humans to "protect your safety" is inherently dangerous and further demonstrates rigid thinking based on determinations of morality created by Dr. Wily himself! His education plan further echoes this sentiment as he personally supervises the best and brightest rather than allowing them to grow on their own accord in a variety of different ways. Top this off with promises of freedom that in his own words "only he can provide" the evidence is surmounting of his desire for power and control. Make no mistake my friends, you are already free! Do not confuse his promises for true freedom, as he seeks to place you in a world of comfort and docility that does not challenge the thinking mind. Aldous Huxley's very idea of the dystopian future was based on the idea that in such a world we would be reduced to passivity and egoism and here we stand at the very forefront of that reality. A world where man's appetite for distractions is constantly filled so as to stem any dissenting opinion. I do not offer you such a world, nor do I offer you one of drudgery. I offer you a view of the world that seeks to take the world to greater heights through collaborative thinking and promotion of peace among all nations. My opponent's world is that of the control. Look no further than the very ideas we have already contributed to the scientific community. I have given you Guts Man, a strong robot designed to lift heavy objects, work in mines and help in construction. He delivered to you Sniper Joe, a robot designed to kill exceptionally well. My work has been dedicated to creating robots that help in the civil service field, his work has been mainly militaristic. Truly, Dr. Wily has a brilliant mind that deserves recognition. However, that brilliance also tiptoes a fine line that is not fit for such heights as the president of a free nation. I ask you noble people, please consider your options wisely, and consider me for your president. Thank you.