The Instigator
proglib
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamnotwhoiam
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
iamnotwhoiam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,427 times Debate No: 27571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

proglib

Pro

Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

My intention is to show that almost from the minute Republicans/conservatives started running running against Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, they started to throw anything they could think of at him to see if it would stick; further, that they have continued to do this nearly nonstop for much of the last four and a half years; and finally, that enough people stopped listening with the result that this lack of credibility from the right helped cost the Romney-Ryan ticket the election.


DEFINITIONS
  • Crying Wolf

This will be defined to include times when someone believes the nonsense that they're promulgating. What is important is that even if there is a grain of truth in the claim, that the case is overstated and not credible to enough members of the general public


In this definition of crying wolf the key thing is that the rest of the village never sees the wolf, even if the boy indeed believed the wolf was there. (One would not go so far as to say that the boy saw the wolf--more that he thought he heard it or smelled it or thought he saw its shadow.)


Therefore, I hope to not spend a lot of time arguing about whether Obama really is a Muslim, Socialist, was born in Kenya, or “palled around with terrorists,” and so on.


On the other hand, if someone wants to make the case that what I consider outlandish claims were believable enough that they didn’t cost Romney the election, then that might be interesting.


Some ground rules
    • This is not a semantic debate. Let’s please spend the first round, and (perhaps some preparatory comments?) with definitions if needed.

    • As indicated above, I'm looking for somebody who hopefully does not accept the whole nonsense line that the right has been trying to take in crying wolf. That seems like a pretty lame debate.
    • However, if someone really wants to debate most of the cases I’ll be citing, what the heck, I’ve had plenty of experience with family members who claim to worry that blue helmeted soldiers will be infringing on their right to arm bears.
iamnotwhoiam

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in my first debate at debate.org .

You have said round one is for definitions and preparatory comments. I do not dispute your definitions, neither do I have any of my own to add. As for preparatory comments, I only feel I should say that I do not intend to dispute that the Republicans cried wolf on occasions, so you can take that as a given if you like and proceed to establish that such actions helped them lose the 2012 election.
Debate Round No. 1
proglib

Pro

First, I should admit that it is unlikely that I will find the empirical data/evidence that I need to prove my case.

I needed to show that some percent of people in the swing states were affected by the crying wolf of conservatives. The data (polls on attitudes towards conservative attacks on Obama; how they may have changed overtime; whether all attacks lost credibility due to outlandishness of some of the attacks) was harder than I expected.

Therefore, I must concede defeat in this debate without putting up much of a case. My apologies to my esteemed opponent.

[If I'm able to find any evidence, I will share it in the third round. In case anyone is interested.]

I am also still interested in my opponents thoughts on this topic, if he would like to share them.

iamnotwhoiam

Con

The Associated Press exit poll does not show any signs that distrust of the Republicans was a major issue.

59% of voters said the economy was the biggest issue. Other big issues were health care and the deficit. 4% said foreign policy was the main issue.

Obama won by a big margin. Therefore it is unlikely that anything but the major issues helped the Republicans lose.

Further, the Democrats have been accused of crying wolf themselves. For example,

http://www.suntimes.com...
http://cultureandfreedom.com...
http://virtualgreenroom.wikia.com...


So I think it more likely that the issue of crying wolf might be seen as more important to those invested in a particular party than to the average voter.

When it comes down to it, the data are the exit poll, and there is nothing in the exit poll to back up the debate resolution.

Sources
http://www.theprovince.com...


Debate Round No. 2
proglib

Pro

Excellent argument iamnotwhoiam. Thank you once again for accepting my first debate challenge!

Since I dropped the ball on finding data I will not be able respond to you empirically. You win that aspect of the debate.

On a logical basis, I'll try the following:

1. Though the Democrats also were also guilty of crying wolf it is my contention that theirs was not of the same degree and did not hurt them as much.

Using your (perfectly valid) examples, it seems clear that their claims were more in the realm of reality, and didn't make it to the level of urban myth that the Republicans' claims did.

http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.zazzle.com...
http://www.vice.com...
http://www.wnd.com...

2. As to Obama winning by a wide margin, he actually won by several small margins in the swing states.

3. While it is clear that the biggest issue was the economy, it is also true that the majority of voters are (or were) Conservative. [1]

Since the economy was the biggest issue, Mitt Romney as a Successful, Conservative Businessman should've had much more credibility on that issue than Obama.

It is my contention that conservatives, especially the tea party, squandered that credibility for Mr. Romney with outlandish accusations, rather than focusing on the economy.

Please VOTE!

[1] http://www.gallup.com...

[A late footnote to this footnote is that according to some people looking at the exit polls moderates were a plurality in the election. http://www.cbsnews.com.... I clearly don't have time to follow this idea and will not use it in my argument. However, this might be evidence to support my case that folks were more conservative at the beginning of year (the Gallup poll was taken in January) than they were at the time of the election.]
iamnotwhoiam

Con

"Though the Democrats also were also guilty of crying wolf it is my contention that theirs was not of the same degree and did not hurt them as much."

Evidence? Argument? Prima facie, they are equivalent cases of crying wolf.

"While it is clear that the biggest issue was the economy, it is also true that the majority of voters are (or were) Conservative. "

Conservatives do NOT make up the majority of voters. Conservatives are simply the largest ideological group.

My opponent has done nothing to show that crying wolf helped the Conservatives lose the US Presidency. It is an unsupported assertion.

Vote CON.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Thanks for voting folks!

iamnotwhoiam definitely ate my lunch in this debate. (I only wish I had provided more substantive fare. :)
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
@iamnotwhoiam

Excellent argument!

I'll do my best to find countering data.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
@iamnotwhoiam

Thanks very much for accepting this debate--also my first on DDO. And thanks for your quick and appropriate response.

Now I seem to have put myself in a difficult, though interesting, position of having to do quite a bit of research in just a couple of days. (I was sort of hoping you'd take longer to respond.:) Fortunately, I'm home from work this week, so no excuse there.

Let's see what kind of data is available.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
proglibiamnotwhoiamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it was a factor possibly, but I'm not sure and con has better arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
proglibiamnotwhoiamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: from the looks of it pro forfeited in round 2, then proceeded on arguing in round 3, and although im inclined to give conduct to the con for that I decided no to since his arguments were superior anyways. Cons evidence that issues like the economy had the heaviest influence on voters and not whiny republicans or whatever won him the arguments pretty swiftly. Arguments to the con, sources I left at a tie since they were mostly used to just bring up examples of the sh*t slinging doen by both parties during the election, and conduct and grammar i left at a tie........ Even though the arguments werent of the best quality, i still found this debate to be entertaining, so I give it 3 out of 4 stars
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
proglibiamnotwhoiamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Strange debate. PRO looked well prepared to begin the debate, but proved to be anything but. Was looking forward to a complex discussion about whether or not proven instances of crying wolf became a detriment to the GOP, especially in the case of the Tea Party. Burden of proof is on PRO by default, and PRO had no proof. Agree with CON that "[PRO] has done nothing to show that crying wolf helped the Conservatives lose the US Presidency. It is an unsupported assertion." Well done, CON.