The Instigator
oboeman
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
WarMonger
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 8/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,616 times Debate No: 4915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

oboeman

Pro

I argue that Senator Obama should have accepted Senator McCain's general request for town-hall debates.

Seemingly, one could argue that the role of government (and of course Obama and McCain are vying for its top spot) is to do what is best for its country/society. Therefore, what must be determined is how one figures out what is indeed best for the country. There are often many opposing viewpoints provided by numerous people and parties. However, for the government to truly determine what is best, collectively, debate and argumentation must be pursued.

Thus, because of the declination of the pursuit of truth via these debates, Obama is seemingly in error (on this issue).

For additional background regarding McCain's proposal and Obama's declination, see the below sources.

http://news.yahoo.com...

http://www.cnn.com...

Depending on my opponent's response, I may get more detailed in my logic in regards to this issue in later rounds.

As a side note, I am currently supporting Obama (and hopefully John Edwards too). However, I question this action (or perhaps, instead, inaction) made by the Obama campaign.

I look forward to this debate,
Oboeman.
WarMonger

Con

It serves No Purpose for the Leading Candidate to enter Debates
-John McCain Would only make social insults towards obama and his Image.
-Moreso Its clear from past Debates during the primaries that nothing productive or in relation to the issues was established.

So becuase Obama would stand to gain nothing from it, It was in his best interest not to accept debates with McCain.
Debate Round No. 1
oboeman

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent, WarMonger, for accepting this challenge, and I look forward to this debate.

"It serves No Purpose for the Leading Candidate to enter Debates"

The purpose of debating the issues is to establish truth, and helping to guide the country in regards to how to ameliorate its society. The fact that Obama may currently be the leading candidate is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that the government ought to do what is best for its country as a whole, of which can be deduced through debating means. For example, although being the leading candidate, it does not mean all of Obama's views on the issues are ideal or cannot be improved and refined. Debating can assist the bettering of ideas and issues for the government to implement. The president, of course, is an influential figure in such implementations. Thus, I have refuted my opponent's claim. I have argued that there is indeed purpose for candidates to engage in town-hall debates.

"John McCain Would only make social insults towards obama and his Image."

This is not necessarily true. Well, first of all, community members may also be available for comment and stating their own views on particular issues in general. As well, people would be able to tell if McCain would only be making social insults, as my opponent claims. As well, in a debate, the goal is to establish truth. The candidates would better themselves through debate, therefore working on establishing that which is better for the country as a whole.

"Moreso Its clear from past Debates during the primaries that nothing productive or in relation to the issues was established."

To the contrary, the primary debates allowed the public to assess the views and issues of the numerous candidates running. I agree that there was a great deal of fighting and attacking the other candidates, but the general points each candidate want to make would be available. As well, McCain has expressed interest in making these debates Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Thus, in essence, they would be the ones debating each other, with no moderator for the most part. This plan would allow for more time to elaborate on the important issues. However, even if little was established in previous primary debates during the season (of which I have already negated), how does this verify that nothing would be established through additional debates? The candidates in the primaries were in the same party, and thus their differences on the issues were minimal compared to between the democratic and republican primary winners. Much more argumentation and debate would logically be pursued, as can be induced, seeing as the candidates would agree much less readily on the issues most important.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"So becuase Obama would stand to gain nothing from it, It was in his best interest not to accept debates with McCain."

To combat this assertion made by my opponent, I say that it is most important for the public and society to gain from such debates. The issues referred to in presidential debates regard the society. Yet, however, both Obama and McCain could gain from these debates. This potential inevitably exists, and because of this occurrence, both candidates stand to gain from the debates. The purpose of a debate is to establish truth, and hopefully reach mutual agreement between involved members and parties. Overall, what is best for the society as a whole can be deduced much more readily via debate than through merely attacking each candidate and similar tactics used throughout the campaigning season. The ideal course of action for Obama would have been to accept McCain's request for town-hall debates.

I await the following rounds.
WarMonger

Con

1. Yes, in an ideal world the purpose of the debates is to better americas future and such but as you can see in a "Time" article of August fourth, When obama set fourth solutions to gas mileage to help america with the current fuel problem, mccain ridiculed him and to this day has the "joke" on his website. This demonstrates that Obama's legitimate attempts to establish better fuel mileage in america were undermined by John McCains unwarranted attacks.

2.While the candidates could better themselves in these Debates, the risk seems far too high considering obama is only a margin ahead. As you can see in McCains television ad where he compares Obama to britney spears. The risk can also be found when he distorts obamas trip to the middle east. As the past records of ads and commentary suggest, obama going into these town meeting with McCain would most likely lead to McCain having an open forum to attack and distort obamas image, so considering obama is consistently ahead it would only prove beneficial to engage in Town Hall debates, even if the long term outcome was "better the candidates"

3."As well, McCain has expressed interest in making these debates Lincoln-Douglas style debates. "

- I would first like to point out that accoriding to CQ politics and yahoo news of August 2nd-
"Under McCain's plan, the candidates would have met once a week between June and the Democratic National Convention at the tail end of August. Though it left room for negotiation of details, the McCain camp suggested that the candidates appear together for 60 to 90 minutes at each meeting and take "blind questions" from members of an audience ranging from 200 to 400 people. "

With the audience asking questions it could lead to compromising situations for Barack Obama. This was demonstrated in the Abc Hilary-Barack Debate where one voter mailed in a video-question asking "Why doesnt senator obama wear a flag lapel?" While many voters are eager to see how the candidates will fix the economy and end the war in Iraq..., there will be a large majority of voters very attached to theeir respective candidate who are willing to ask embarrasing or ridiculous questions. So with the unpredictable voters asking questions, it seems apparent that nothing would get done and it would be counterproductive to both candidates.

4."To combat this assertion made by my opponent, I say that it is most important for the public and society to gain from such debates. The issues referred to in presidential debates regard the society"

They would Stand to gain very little from the debates. As i have said before, in an ideal world debates benefit society, but unfortunately we live in a little thign called reality....Senator Barack obama has held rallies where he as answered questions and affirmed his stances. It would be superflous and counterproductive to put himself in a situation that could potentially sway some of his voters to McCain..

-I apologize for the late response-
Debate Round No. 2
oboeman

Pro

By the way, I would hardly consider my opponent's response "late." For this site, all are entitled to three days to respond. I, myself, often wait a long duration as well.

"Yes, in an ideal world the purpose of the debates is to better americas future and such but as you can see in a "Time" article of August fourth, When obama set fourth solutions to gas mileage to help america with the current fuel problem, mccain ridiculed him and to this day has the "joke" on his website. This demonstrates that Obama's legitimate attempts to establish better fuel mileage in america were undermined by John McCains unwarranted attacks."

Indeed, I understand that the world might not be considered ideal at the time. However, this point is, society should TRY to better itself, and by accepting proposals to debate is a valid method of doing so.
As for Obama's idea regarding gas mileage, many individuals (mostly liberals) in the society realize that Obama's plan is valid and logical. For McCain to have criticized Obama for this plan was completely ridiculous. However, if the two were to just briefly debate the manner, even more members of society could see that one is ridiculing an absolutely valid proposal. Many Americans realize personal attacks presented by politicians, and often choose to ignore them as illogical, counteracting little of their opponent's argument.

"While the candidates could better themselves in these Debates, the risk seems far too high considering obama is only a margin ahead. As you can see in McCains television ad where he compares Obama to britney spears. The risk can also be found when he distorts obamas trip to the middle east. As the past records of ads and commentary suggest, obama going into these town meeting with McCain would most likely lead to McCain having an open forum to attack and distort obamas image, so considering obama is consistently ahead it would only prove beneficial to engage in Town Hall debates"

There are two potential conclusions. Either Obama, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates, or McCain, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates. If Obama does better, the results would be clearly obvious, thus ameliorating the rating. If McCain does better, the results would again be clearly obvious, causing a more readily decrease in Obama's favorable rating. Thus, logically, the better candidate would most likely result on top in the polls. As a note, in order to truly distinguish who won a debate, the opposing member(s) would optimally obtain mutual agreement. If not obtained, there is obviously more to be stated, thus resulting in further debate. It often takes a while for mutual agreement to be reached on a variety of issues, but extensive views and issues can more readily be shared and debated with more available time, as would be given with such proposed debates.
Again, the society can often tell if a candidate is merely throwing personal attacks or truly offering argumentation regarding an issue deemed important.
As well, one ought to look at what could be lost by Obama not accepting such debates. For example, many might consider Obama inexperienced on the issues (not necessarily true) for declining requests to debate.
By accepting McCain's debates, Obama would be able to point out, if necessary, any personal attacks made by opponents.

"With the audience asking questions it could lead to compromising situations for Barack Obama. This was demonstrated in the Abc Hilary-Barack Debate where one voter mailed in a video-question asking "Why doesnt senator obama wear a flag lapel?" While many voters are eager to see how the candidates will fix the economy and end the war in Iraq..., there will be a large majority of voters [attached to their] respective candidate who are willing to ask embarrasing or ridiculous questions."

Well, first of all, it is often difficult for a single individual to tell what is most important. It remains rather arbitrary. As well, in a general sense, Obama and McCain could still begin by debating what society considers most relevant for the country initially, and then later take questions from the audience. Another point resides in the POTENTIAL for relevant questions to be asked. Without debating at all, such a potential would not occur. However, with the debates happening, such a potential, inevitably, does indeed exist.

"As i have said before, in an ideal world debates benefit society, but unfortunately we live in a little thign called reality....Senator Barack obama has held rallies where he as answered questions and affirmed his stances. It would be superflous and counterproductive to put himself in a situation that could potentially sway some of his voters to McCain."

The point is, again, regardless of how much gets accomplished through the debates, it still ameliorates the potential for further gain for both the candidates and the society alike. Basically, Obama holds rallies and McCain holds rallies. And one candidate affirms one idea, and the other a different one, while both attack the other. Little gets accomplished this way. A real, meaningful debate between opposing members would much more likely accomplish so much more, allowing the society to progress much more readily.

Indeed, Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates, according to all the reasons given and cited.
Thus, logic dictates a PRO vote.

I would also ask that potential voters give reasoning in regards to their respective votes.

I would like to thank my opponent for debating this important issue,
Oboeman
WarMonger

Con

First off you stated:
"Indeed, I understand that the world might not be considered ideal at the time. However, this point is, society should TRY to better itself, and by accepting proposals to debate is a valid method of doing so.
As for Obama's idea regarding gas mileage, many individuals (mostly liberals) in the society realize that Obama's plan is valid and logical. For McCain to have criticized Obama for this plan was completely ridiculous. However, if the two were to just briefly debate the manner, even more members of society could see that one is ridiculing an absolutely valid proposal. Many Americans realize personal attacks presented by politicians, and often choose to ignore them as illogical, counteracting little of their opponent's argument"

--While i do agree that most americans would easily recognize a personal attack, you have to consider the Independents and easily swayed voters. According to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com..., Obama is leading by only 2.1%. He cant afford to lose the independents or easily swayed Voters. While the personal attacks on a valid plan would be apparent to most, you have to look at the outlier group that could be adversely affected in terms of obama and cost him the race. *So inorder to maintain his lead indefinitely, he made the right coice in straying away from these Risky Town Hall debates.--

Second you made the statement that:
"There are two potential conclusions. Either Obama, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates, or McCain, from a logical standpoint, wins one of the debates. If Obama does better, the results would be clearly obvious, thus ameliorating the rating. If McCain does better, the results would again be clearly obvious, causing a more readily decrease in Obama's favorable rating. Thus, logically, the better candidate would most likely result on top in the polls. As a note, in order to truly distinguish who won a debate, the opposing member(s) would optimally obtain mutual agreement. If not obtained, there is obviously more to be stated, thus resulting in further debate. It often takes a while for mutual agreement to be reached on a variety of issues, but extensive views and issues can more readily be shared and debated with more available time, as would be given with such proposed debates.
Again, the society can often tell if a candidate is merely throwing personal attacks or truly offering argumentation regarding an issue deemed important.
As well, one ought to look at what could be lost by Obama not accepting such debates. For example, many might consider Obama inexperienced on the issues (not necessarily true) for declining requests to debate.
By accepting McCain's debates, Obama would be able to point out, if necessary, any personal attacks made by opponents"

-- Once again, either way the debates turn out, one candidate is going to suffer in decrease in popularity. With Obama consistently in the lead throughout the entire Race he has no reason to jeapordize that in a town hall debate.You say that obama could be considered inexpierienced on these issues. Obama's trips to the middle east, discussions with foreign leaders, and rallies have given him more than enough credibility. But on the other Hand, many voters prefer a candidate that hasnt been around washington. President Bush's Policies over the last 8 years have caused us to enter an economic and milityary downturn. Voters want someone who has knowledge on the issues but at the same time, a new view one the world. *While he could lose credibilty, it is just as logical, if not more plausible, that he could gain votes for being somewhat of a maverick and different from the past administrations.--

Third:
"Well, first of all, it is often difficult for a single individual to tell what is most important. It remains rather arbitrary. As well, in a general sense, Obama and McCain could still begin by debating what society considers most relevant for the country initially, and then later take questions from the audience. Another point resides in the POTENTIAL for relevant questions to be asked. Without debating at all, such a potential would not occur. However, with the debates happening, such a potential, inevitably, does indeed exist"

-- Potential for the Debates to spawn Credible questions is just as likely for the the debates to spwan detrimental questions that could hurt both candidates images. The candiates holding rallies and taking questions independently yields for a greater chance to build comprehensive plans to better the country, without the clutter of embarrasing questions from the voters of the opposing candidate. SO it seems that becuase the respectives candidates could get more out of independently campaigning than rallying, that obama made the right choice on turning down the potentially counter productive debates.

Finally,
"The point is, again, regardless of how much gets accomplished through the debates, it still ameliorates the potential for further gain for both the candidates and the society alike. Basically, Obama holds rallies and McCain holds rallies. And one candidate affirms one idea, and the other a different one, while both attack the other. Little gets accomplished this way. A real, meaningful debate between opposing members would much more likely accomplish so much more, allowing the society to progress much more readily."

-- It seems superflous that they "work together" if only one candidate is to enter the oval office. They have completely differences stance and harbor a great deal of animosity towards each other. There has so far been no evidence of candidates of different parties working together hand-hand to form a comprehensive solution to america's problems, and unfortunately this leads me to believe that virtually nothing will be accomplished that can push america towards a better future in these town hall debates

-I would like to commed you on this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
Obama is a pus*y a*s lightweight with NO I repeat NO business anyhwhere near the white house

His pus*y a*s wouldnt want to accept debate with a REAL MAN with REAL CONVICTIONS like McCain

typical democrat lying antiamerican pus*y a*s
Posted by CogitoErgoCogitoSum 8 years ago
CogitoErgoCogitoSum
I havent heard anything about this... I didnt know Obama was against town-hall forums. But I fully agree that the right to assemble, and the rights to debate and discuss issues, the right to collectively decide on the best course of action... is all very democratic... and those rights should not be hindered.

The government may argue that those rights are not being hindered... but if we cannot assemble at governmental locations to discuss governmental issues, then where can we? Town-halls have existed for that purpose, really, and though our rights to assemble, discuss, and vote are not directly hindered, any policy preventing it at the predetermined locations for the sake of government is effectively the same hindrance.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
oboemanWarMongerTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
oboemanWarMongerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
oboemanWarMongerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Janko 8 years ago
Janko
oboemanWarMongerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by WarMonger 8 years ago
WarMonger
oboemanWarMongerTied
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 apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
oboemanWarMongerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
oboemanWarMongerTied
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:30