The Instigator
JTSmith
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

John McCain's Wicked Huge Let Down

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,637 times Debate No: 5130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

JTSmith

Pro

Even before this election season hit off, I was hoping a for a McCain nomination. I have been a McCain fan ever since i looked into him. I had high hopes for him when he announced his candidacy for president again. I thought that this was his time!
I was quickly dissappointed though, and let me tell you why. John McCain quickly began to run a very dirty campaign that was fueled on bias, twisted words, and straight lies not straight talk.
Mitt took the first swing with his anti-mccain ads, but McCain took it to a WHOLE new level. As Romney turned on the heat and McCain's lead seemed threatened, McCain sky-dived of the high road and sold his soul for the nomination. He began telling blunt lies and attacking Romney's character, not just his politics. In Florida, for example, the primary was coming up quickly and Romney was neck and neck with McCain. In some polls even ahead. Losing florida wouldve been a big blunder for McCain and so he crossed the line. McCain told a blunt lie that became so obvious, the public and even the Media even began crying out for a retraction and an apology. McCain began accusing Romney of wanting to pull out of Iraq. His phib was based on an interview with Romney. As America watched the interview over and over it became obvious that McCain had gone to far. Did anyone stop the Maverick??? No. McCain won Florida by robbing romney of his voted based on a lie. The lie trickled on to California as well and had the same effect. A romney, though he was leading in CA, lost the primary by a landslide.
The lies have not ended there however. The attack ads on Sen. Obama are relentless!!! They never end and it makes my head hurt!!! Many if not most of the McCain's attack ads are ridiculous to the point of laughter. These ads could be bought only by the most gullible of Americans. As for the very few that actually attack Obama's politics, even these are grossly misleading and taken so far out of context that McCain IS arguably lying.
Now this is not the ranting of a bias Obama supporter. In fact, the only reason I am an Obama supporter is because I could NEVER support McCain after this. His politics are dirty and personal. He plays politics like he is a 72 yr old child throwing a tantrum or pointing and laughing. I need somebody who will act like an adult and talk about the issues, not poke fun at Obama's personal traits.
How can I vote for John McCain when he runs an ad claiming obama does not understand the housing problem because he owns a million dollar house when John McCain himself owns 8 mansions, 7 of which are worth over a million dollars!?

I had High hopes for McCain...
but he let me down hard by sinking to a gross and childish level.
For a man who bashed Romney's campaign tactics so hard, McCain sure knows how to play the game...

Anyway, my opponent would argue something to the effect of
McCains, tactics are no dirtier than Obama's or that McCain has, in fact, taken the high road. My opponent will attempt to change my opinion of McCain's dirty tactics.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"McCain told a blunt lie that became so obvious, the public and even the Media even began crying out for a retraction and an apology. McCain began accusing Romney of wanting to pull out of Iraq. His phib was based on an interview with Romney"

If something is a lie, it cannot be based on an interview with romney.

Here is what Romney said:

"Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement," Romney told ABC in April."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

The same source cites the following as a summary of Mccain's claim:
McCain has suggested for days that Romney once supported a timetable for withdrawal, though he only recently began naming the Massachusetts Republican by name.

Stating that there is "No question" that you "have to have" a series of timetables, means you support a timetable. I agree with Romney on that point actually, and with the lack of public pronouncement of them.

But the fact that he states he'd keep the timetables secret does not demonstrate that he does not support a timetable. It is, in short, TRUE. A timetable means that one will withdraw from Iraq at a specified time. That is what the term "timetable" means in the politics regarding present-day Iraq.

"
How can I vote for John McCain when he runs an ad claiming obama does not understand the housing problem because he owns a million dollar house when John McCain himself owns 8 mansions, 7 of which are worth over a million dollars!?"

That is not dishonest either. You see, Mccain admitted on a separate occasion that he does not understand the domestic economy. Obama has never made such an admission, so, Mccain's statement serves as an argument that they are on even ground there. It is of course not entirely accurate to say that one's understanding of the economy is proportional to one's pocketbook, but a weakness in one's argument is not the same as dirty tactics.

I am not of course

Keep in mind the burden of proof lies on you.
May I seek to condense your position into a resolution that captures the essence of what we are arguing over? It seems to be a three parter- You want to argue that Mccain's tactics are unduly "dirty" (based on lies), you want to argue that this is not true of Obama, and you want to argue that this is a "let-down," i.e. not predictable (I for example have gotten precisely what I expected out of Mccain so far this campaign- A general sense of inconsistency mixed with stupidity, but all in enough of a mix to make his proposed policies somewhat less harmful than Obama's.

You see, little things like insulting, lying, etc, are really rather... little when it comes to determining who one should support. It's expected, it's part of the point. The real meaning of "Dirty politics," the kind that must be exterminated, is the kind where candidate's promise voters money that doesn't belong to them. Obama's proposed expansions of taxes:

" Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely "
http://www.ontheissues.org...

in order to expand government handouts, such as health care, and prop up current handouts, such as social security.

There is nothing dirtier in politics than open robbery, except perhaps burglary or assassination. Neither of the latter two are discussed by either major candidate, but the amount of robbery (taxes) Obama proposes is higher than the amount Mccain proposes. Mere mudslinging is negligible in comparison, thus, Obama is the dirtier politician.
Debate Round No. 1
JTSmith

Pro

1."Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement," Romney told ABC in April."

I'm afraid that my opponent has made the same mistake that many have made after listening or reading this interview. It is a mistake that many have made because McCain twisted Romney's words. Romney never says that he will withdraw troops after his inauguration. He never says they need to come home soon. Certainly Romney wanted to get the job done before we came home. He even expressed that in the interview. Romney's statement referring to "timetables and milestones" referred expressly to a change in strategy from the failing Rumsfeld-Cheney plan we were currently using. Romney expressed his concern of the current plan and said that a series of timetable and milestones should be used to rearrange the current strategy in Iraq and prepare Iraq to take over the reins so are troops could eventually return home. Romney never mentioned how long this time tables would last, and only stated that eventually we would need to use them and we needed to keep the secret so the radical jihadist did not know when we were going to leave. McCain twisted Romney's words to make it sound as if he was in favor of a Clinton or Obama withdrawal. Nothing is further from the truth and even ABC knew the difference. McCain's ads and accusations were grossly misleading.

2. My opponent justifies McCain's ad accusing Obama of not understanding the mortgage crisis, by claiming that McCain has admitted already that he does not understand the domestic economy very well.
A. That does not remove McCain from the ridiculous level of hypocrisy that is carried by the ad
B. McCain certainly has admitted that he does not understand the domestic economy well, but he has also said that he understands it very well.

http://www.youtube.com...

(McCain on the economy 1:35 seconds – 2:07 seconds)
Flip-flop much??? Just more lies…
The truth is McCain is in no place to accuse Obama of being ill-informed. If McCain were to be held to his own standard he would be well over 8 times more ill-informed than Obama!!!
3. Finally, my opponent's begins to attack Obama's tax policy, saying that Obama's campaign is just as dirty because of his fiscal policy. I would like to remind my opponent that we are not talking about the individual candidate's policies but the way they conduct themselves and their campaign. Has Obama released an attack ad on McCain??? Only one that was in response to McCain laughable "Celebrity" ad. Has Obama ever attacked McCain's personal character or experience? No. In fact Obama has only praised McCain's patriotism and experience, calling him an "honorable man." McCain has had a childish disability to return the favor. In fact, on John McCain's website you can find 18 anti-Obama ads, most of the are ridiculous and unfounded. Feel free to see them yourself.
How many anti-McCain ads can you find on Obama's website???
0
Obama talks about the issues.
McCain talks bad about Obama and his character…
That's a big let down on McCain's part. I would have expected an American hero to act like one…
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"It is a mistake that many have made because McCain twisted Romney's words. Romney never says that he will withdraw troops after his inauguration."

You are twisting those words. A timetable in the context of Iraq means a timetable for withdrawal. Whether the withdrawal is immediately after inaugauration is not the issue, even the Democratic candidates are against immediate withdrawal (I, I should note, am not). When you respond "Of course" to "Should there be a timetable?" you are assenting to the timetable.

"Certainly Romney wanted to get the job done before we came home. He even expressed that in the interview. Romney's statement referring to "timetables and milestones" referred expressly to a change in strategy from the failing Rumsfeld-Cheney plan we were currently using."

The so-called "Failure" of the "Rumsfield-Cheney plan" has to do with a strategy involving smaller troop concentration. It has nothing to do with timetables and milestones.

"omney expressed his concern of the current plan and said that a series of timetable and milestones should be used to rearrange the current strategy in Iraq and prepare Iraq to take over the reins so are troops could eventually return home. Romney never mentioned how long this time tables would last, and only stated that eventually we would need to use them and we needed to keep the secret so the radical jihadist did not know when we were going to leave. McCain twisted Romney's words to make it sound as if he was in favor of a Clinton or Obama withdrawal."
Clinton and Obama's withdrawal plans consist of timetables being set to slowly get troops out over time. You are saying, essentially, that Romney's plan is to slowly get troops out over time with secret timetables. Clinton's and Obama's if I recall do not reference secrets, so secrets are an accessory, not fundamental to the truth of a comparison.

"
A. That does not remove McCain from the ridiculous level of hypocrisy that is carried by the ad"

Hypocrisy consists of advocating something and not living up to it. Mccain's statements in those ads informed people of a fact and argued they meant another fact, neither fact in and of itself a recommendation. The word "hypocrisy" does not apply.

"B. McCain certainly has admitted that he does not understand the domestic economy well, but he has also said that he understands it very well."

And Obama claims he said one thing about Iraq, but he actually said another:

http://johnbarrysblog.blogspot.com...

What's your point?

No presidential candidate presidently running has any understanding of the law of non-contradiction. Two candidates who are equal on a given ground cannot be compared usefully on that ground when trying to choose between them.

"I would like to remind my opponent that we are not talking about the individual candidate's policies but the way they conduct themselves and their campaign"

Policies ARE the way a candidate conducts themselves and their campaign. They are the only way that matters.
Nothing matters about a presidential candidate, except what they will do if they win office. The rest is completely irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 2
JTSmith

Pro

Im sorry...
I have not had time to post a proper rebuttal...
I will try and post an argument in comments. If my opponent would prefer not to wait he is welcome to go ahead and post the nest argument...
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
-You are turning this into a he said/she said. The truth is that your understanding of the interview is nothing other than an assumption. If people want to understand the real context of "withdrawal" then they can watch the interview themselves."

This, I'm afraid, is not a rebuttal. First off, everything in presidential campaigns revolves around what someone said. Second, I gave a major news source quoting the interview in one of the rounds, watching videos takes forever. Third, you offer no substantial alternative to my interpretation.

"
-The, yes FAILED!, cheney-rumsfeld plan did not involved timetable or withdrawals. Romney stated the timetable would be needed to create progress in Iraq, something the Cheney-Rumsefeld plan was unable to produce...
"
Whether the plan failed depends on what you happen to want out of it. I got what I wanted out of it, namely, Saddam's death. But in any case, that does not follow, you are simply seizing on a coincidence. Timetables have nothing to do with combat, they have to do with saving resources. They are wholly incapable of producing new "progress" in Iraq. Just getting the hell out of there to save money. That is the meaning of "timetable."

"
-At the time of the interview, a Clinton-Obama withdrawal meant leaving immediately and quickly."

Source?

"Lastly, the word hypocracy does apply! He condemned Obama for owning a million dollar house when he himself owns 8 million dollar houses! Ridiculous!"
Hypocracy is not a word, it cannot apply to anything. If you mean hypocrisy... he did not "Condemn" obama, he argued that obama does not understand the housing crisis. That is not a condemnation. :D.

"This as accuses Barack Obama of being the cause of high gas prices!!! With no explanation!!!"

You just proved you didn't pay attention to the ad. It gave the explanation, specifically, "the man who says no to drilling in america" (shorthand for Obama's position against drilling just off the coast of California.) This reduces supply, therefore increasing oil prices.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
I gotta keep this short because I have less characters in comments...

"You are twisting those words. A timetable in the context of Iraq means a timetable for withdrawal. Whether the withdrawal is immediately after inaugauration is not the issue, even the Democratic candidates are against immediate withdrawal (I, I should note, am not). When you respond "Of course" to "Should there be a timetable?" you are assenting to the timetable."
-You are turning this into a he said/she said. The truth is that your understanding of the interview is nothing other than an assumption. If people want to understand the real context of "withdrawal" then they can watch the interview themselves.

"The so-called "Failure" of the "Rumsfield-Cheney plan" has to do with a strategy involving smaller troop concentration. It has nothing to do with timetables and milestones."
-The, yes FAILED!, cheney-rumsfeld plan did not involved timetable or withdrawals. Romney stated the timetable would be needed to create progress in Iraq, something the Cheney-Rumsefeld plan was unable to produce...

"Clinton and Obama's withdrawal plans consist of timetables being set to slowly get troops out over time. You are saying, essentially, that Romney's plan is to slowly get troops out over time with secret timetables."
-At the time of the interview, a Clinton-Obama withdrawal meant leaving immediately and quickly.

"
Lastly, the word hypocracy does apply! He condemned Obama for owning a million dollar house when he himself owns 8 million dollar houses! Ridiculous!
I would like to turn the readers' attention to a John McCain as straight from his own website that proves my point.
http://www.johnmccain.com...
This as accuses Barack Obama of being the cause of high gas prices!!! With no explanation!!!
With all do respect...it s a real "what the frick?" moment! How about blaming it on McCain's Party's war??!!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Post whenever you like. :D
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
http://www.debate.org...

Read my comment (first one).
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
er... replace "presidently running" with "presently running" in my R2 lol.
Posted by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
this link should work better than the one i posted...

http://www.youtube.com...
Posted by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
baby, good debate, but it sounds like your debating that Romney should still be in the race because McCain lied and cheated.

I'd take you on this one but I totally agree. besides the fact that McCain is old and will die before finishing both terms.

I LOVE YOU!
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Shouldn't it be a debate about if McCains tactics were valid against, Romney? Seeing as how it is your entire argument they were not?
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Shouldn't it be a debate about if McCains tactics were valid against, Romney? Seeing as how it is your entire argument they were not?
Posted by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
Old
Main entry:

John McCain
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
Politician
Main entry:

A person who lies to get public image to support their self esteem issues.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by craiglightcap 9 years ago
craiglightcap
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 9 years ago
chevy10294
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
JTSmithRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07