The GOP should change their party symbol from the elephant to Yosemite Sam
Debate Rounds (3)
3 rounds, 4000 characters, open to the public.
I will argue that the Republican Party of the US should change their symbol from the elephant (shown here: https://upload.wikimedia.org... ) to Yosemite Sam (Shown here: http://orig15.deviantart.net... ) Based on the following arguments:
1) Yosemite Sam better reflects the GOP's pro gun position.
The GOP is very well known for defending gun rights of US citizens, arguably even too well known, to the point that they are actually unreasonably in favor of pro gun rights. Yosemite Sam is a symbol of cartoon violence with his trademark 6-barrel pistols in each hand while hunting for sport. Elephants on the other hand are NOT synonymous with gun rights, since Elephants do not have fingers, and therefore cannot operate handheld firearms.
Therefore, one reason the GOP should make the change is to better illustrate their devotion to gun rights
2) Yosemite Sam better appeals to younger voters than an elephant
The GOP ahas a history of not exactly appealing to younger voters in elections on any level, whether it be presidential, congressional, etc. Changing the logo to Yosemite Sam on the other hand would help the GOP appeal to a much younger base of voters, since just about every person who grew up in the 1990's at one point watched Yosemite Sam try to kill Bugs Bunny.
The current logo of the elephant does not appeal to younger votes, whereas Yosemite Sam does.
3) An elephant is not the best symbol for the GOP to rally around
What do you think of when you think of 'Elephants'?... Some things that come to mind are 'fat', 'slow', 'endangered', 'african or indian', 'illegal ivory trade that funds terrorist cells'..... None of those things are exactly good qualities that the GOP would like to be associated with though, especially the African and Indian one.... Yosemite Sam on the other hand has several positive qualities associated with him that better represents the GOP, such as:
- 1 - Pro gun rights
- 2 - White
- 3 - Those are the two
There are more positive qualities associated with Yosemite Sam that relate to the GOP than there are with Elephants, meaning that the GOP would actually have more to gain with switching their logo to Yosemite Sam than they would with sticking with the current elephant logo.
4) Yosemite Sam is religious, Elephants are not
One of Yosemite Sam's catchphrases is 'SAY YER PRAYERS, VERMINT!', which he says right before he tries to shoot someone (Meaning he is Pro death penalty, which also relates to the GOP). More importantly though this catchphrase indicates that Yosemite Sam is indeed a religious, god-fearing man, which very accurately relates to the GOP, who are also very devout and religious.
Elephants on the other hand are NOT religious, they are likely either atheists or they worship their own elephant gods and center their religious beliefs around the holy texts of elephant prophets. These religious values conflict with christianity, which is what the GOP is a huge fan of, meaning that elephants and republicans are at odds over which religion is the correct one. Yosemite Sam on the other hand does not present this dilemma to the GOP, as he is a Christian just like 99% of all republicans in history (And 99% might be lowballing it)
5) Elephants don't win races
When was the last time you ever heard an elephant winning a race? Chances are you haven't, meaning that Elephants don't win races, which is an issues to republicans since winning races is kind of the goal for them. This also makes the GOP look bad, and is a reason for why the GOP should change their logo to Yosemite Sam
First of all, republicans don't generally like change, given that they are the Grand OLD Party and they claim to be the bulwarks of traditional values.
But more than that, the republican party is built on conservatism.
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional values, accepting that society can shift, but the principles should not. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.
Changing their party's symbol may signify that the party of steadfastness aint so steadfast anymore.
"Why we gotta change something if it aint wrong?" might be something a republican could say about the symbol change.
According to Pro, "the GOP is very well known for defending gun rights of US citizens" with which I agree, but do you know what republicans are really well known for?
Defending our country's militarily.
Having the largest, most advanced military is neither represented by Yosemite Sam's short stature nor his puny little pistols. Simply, Yosemite Sam is not powerful enough to represent a modern global military power, which is a basic platform of the republican party.
Currently, many republicans fear the threat of a nuclear bomb reaching the US from adversaries like Iran.
Let's look at Yosemite Sam's history with his adversary, Bugs Bunny.
In one instance, Yosemite Sam sees Bugs trespassing and chases Bugs into a deserted castle. Bugs escapes after causing a booby trap that Sam falls for; an armed bomb coated door that will explode if Sam opens the door to the castle...
Sam opens the door, and shows that he is susceptible to bombings.
In another instance Yosemite Same wishes to take the ship of Bugs bunny. In the end, Sam is blown up on his ship by another bomb from his adversary.
In another instance Yosemite Sam is trying to find his adversary by plane, and in the end has a bomb dropped right on him.
While this is quite entertaining for audience members, it indicates a very unprepared, unfortunate, bomb-susceptible symbol...this should not sit well with a party rife with bomb fear.
The symbol of Yosemite Sam provided by Pro also shows a very large cowboy hat, which could be interpreted as a sombrero.
Sombreros are Mexican, and for a republican looking at their symbol wearing a hat from the very people they are trying to prevent from coming in to this country, this is unacceptable.
While elephants may not be religious or win races, they represent an immovable, unwavering, massive presence.
Since the elephant is the largest land animal, like the US is the largest military, other land animals think twice before messing with elephants. Furthermore, an elephant's skin is nearly impenetrable to attacks from others.
Elephants therefore represent the size of our military and the idea that our borders should be impenetrable.
1. Republicans value tradition, preserving old ideas, stability, and continuity so changing the very thing that symbolizes them would not sit well, and may be antithetical to conservatism
2. You call those guns? The pistols carried around by Yosemite Sam do not represent a competitive global military; in fact his weapons are comical. A global military is a cornerstone of the republicans.
3. Yosemite Sam is known for NEVER defeating his adversary and most of the time, he ends up being bombed by his adversary. Thanks to bomb fear from republicans, this is not a good sign.
4. Elephants represent an unwavering, immovable stance on issues. Sounds conservative to me.
1) GOP doesnt like change
"First of all, republicans don't generally like change, given that they are the Grand OLD Party and they claim to be the bulwarks of traditional values."
That is true, but Yosemite Sam embodies those traditional values that the elephant does not, so the change in question would arguably be beneficial to the GOP as it would better help them convey the very traditional values they wish to uphold
"Changing their party's symbol may signify that the party of steadfastness aint so steadfast anymore."
Changing the party symbol for the first time since 1880 (when the Elephant was adopted) doesn't somehow indicate that the GOP is not steadfast anymore. That would be like saying a country that declares war on another country for the first time in over a hundred years makes them a 'warmongering' nation.
2) Military Ideology + Attitude
"Having the largest, most advanced military is neither represented by Yosemite Sam's short stature nor his puny little pistols."
Yosemite Sam may not be perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than an elephant, whose entire defense are two ivory tusks.... Yosemite Sam may not accurately display the GOP's preference for a strong military, but he is a far better representation of military force than a damn elephant.
"While this is quite entertaining for audience members, it (Yosemite Sam's string of failures) indicates a very unprepared, unfortunate, bomb-susceptible symbol...this should not sit well with a party rife with bomb fear."
Elephants are scared of mice. Like they actually are scared of mice, Mythbusters tested this and the results they found made them declare the belief plausible http://www.discovery.com...
So while Yosemite Sam may not be successful in all of his endeavors, Elephants can get scared over the smallest of rodents, whereas Yosemite Sam does not show fear. While Yosemite Sam has some faults, the faults of the current GOP symbol are far larger than those of Yosemite Sam.
3) Visual/metaphor issues
"The symbol of Yosemite Sam provided by Pro also shows a very large cowboy hat, which could be interpreted as a sombrero."
An Elephants tusks could also be seen as two large white dildos, that doesn't mean that upon closer examination people wont be able to distinguish the differences... Whether a cowboy hat can be mistaken for a sombrero is completely irrelevant, let alone speculation since most people in the American Southwest (Republican strongholds I might add) know the difference between a cowboy hat and a sombrero
"While elephants may not be religious or win races, they represent an immovable, unwavering, massive presence."
And also scared of small rodents, and beingeasily hunted, and endangered, and almost entirely unarmed....
"other land animals think twice before messing with elephants."
People also think twice about messing with someone wielding dual pistols in both hands who is also easily agitated. In fact the only person who ever has messed with Yosemite Sam has been a rabbit with a clear death-wish...
"The pistols carried around by Yosemite Sam do not represent a competitive global military"
And tusks are somehow an improvement?
"Yosemite Sam is known for NEVER defeating his adversary and most of the time, he ends up being bombed by his adversary."
Last time I checked America gets bombed as well, and doesn't defeat some of their adversaries either....
"Elephants represent an unwavering, immovable stance on issues. Sounds conservative to me."
I dont imagine that Yosemite Sam would exactly jump on board with letting gay marriage be legal like younger people in the GOP actually do, who Yosemite Sam also better appeals to than a nameless elephant
Yeah, Pro's right...changing a symbol that represents your beliefs and values is very traditional.
Just the other day, I was walking by a church, and at the top there was a Mickey Mouse face instead of a cross. I thought to myself..."How traditional!"
Christians love it when you change the symbol that represents their core beliefs.
The republican party wouldn't have too many traditional Christians in it, would it?
"Changing the party symbol...doesn't somehow indicate that the GOP is not steadfast anymore."
All this time, I thought the republican party was steadfast because they seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity.
But thanks to Pro's claim, changing a 135 year old traditional symbol is a steadfast move...unwavering preservation.
Pro speaks to my claim that changing their symbol isn't steadfast:
"That would be like saying a country that declares war on another country for the first time in over a hundred years makes them a 'warmongering' nation"
If the country were predicated on the values of unwavering neutrality, declaring war would be antithetical to their core beliefs.
The republicans are predicated on not changing, so changing their values representation isn't a steadfast move.
Pro points out:
"Elephants are scared of mice. Like they actually are scared of mice."
Ronald Reagan was scared of the number 666. Like he actually was scared of 666.
If an irrational fear is ok for Ronald Reagan, you know it's ok for republicans.
Furthermore, our country's security is under no threat by mice, so an elephant would still be unmovable in the face of our adversaries.
I must stress that Yosemite Sam's size is of a Grand Old Problem.
If the symbol is to represent a massive immovable global power, and the idea of unwavering stability on issues, Yosemite just doesn't fit the bill physically or behaviorally...Yosemtie is very tiny and an unstable spaz when he gets angry. His presence was designed to be comical, and it shows.
Pro claims that Yosemite Sam's pistols are better than the dildos elephants are sporting these days for tusks.
How many things has Yosemite successfully shot with those baby pistols?
Check out this video of an elephant retaliating against a human adversary.
Yosemite Sam's pistols and stature are no match for an elephant, given that we don't even know if Yosemite's pistols have actually ever worked per their purpose.
I mentioned that Sam's pistols just don't display a true military presence, and Pro replied:
"And tusks are somehow an improvement?"
Tusks don't need to be an improvement, the silly pistols do, because tusks are not being proposed as a change. But I further would argue that more damage can be done by an elephant than by Sam's toy-like pistols.
Notice on the elephant that Pro provided, there are stars and stripes, indicating that the elephant himself is a patriot.
Where is Sam's patriotism?
Obama wasn't considered american because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin.
The elephant though, is decked out in old glory.
Are republicans generally patriotic?
Yosemite Sam is therefore not a symbol that the republicans should rally behind; to change their long standing symbol would be to change; conservatives find change to be suspect.
Elephants are actually very powerful and represent stability and an immovable presence.
Yeah, I know elephants are afraid of mice, but Ronald Reagan had a fear of 666...Reagan is always right with the repubs.
Yosemite's ineffective pistols and comical stature would not be welcome by the party of huge military defense.
Seems we're at the point of the debate where con just straight up misrepresents my arguments or misses the point completely. I went ahead and skipped over con's responses that werent even relevant to the debate, or trie to derail the argument being made completey (which there was a lot of)
1) Representation of traditional values
"changing a symbol that represents your beliefs and values isnt very traditional."
The point here was that Yosemite Sam better represents the values that the Republican Party stands for than the current symbol of an elephant. The better fit of Yosemite Sam as the GOP symbol over the elephant also outweighs any of that representation that is lost simply by switching from one party symbol to another.
"The republican party wouldn't have too many traditional Christians in it, would it?"
The GOP would be changing its symbol from an atheist or pagan elephant to a God-fearing cowboy who routinely requests adversary's to say their prayers right before executing the death penalty on them. Traditional christians have no reason to be opposed to Yosemite Sam over the current GOP symbol
"The republicans are predicated on not changing"
The Republican party updates its position on issues more frequently than con would like you to believe. Conservatives certainly aren't pro slavery anymore, or pro segregation of races, conservatives are not opposed to letting women vote either... Changing the party symbol one time in over a hundred years wont somehow make the GOP no longer the party of steadfast tradition, especially since they would be changing the symbol to Yosemite Sam, a character who has existed since 1945
2) Representation of force
"Furthermore, our country's security is under no threat by mice"
Yet elephants are still scared of them. Does it sound good for the GOP to be represented by a symbol who is scared of things that are completely harmless? I think not.
"How many things has Yosemite successfully shot with those baby pistols?"
The accuracy of the pistols is not an issue here, its the fact that he HAS the pistols as his weapon in the first place which is an issue, since it is the fact that he has pistols which makes him a better fit for representing the GOP than an elephant, which only has tusks.
"If the symbol is to represent a massive immovable global power"
The symbol is meant to embody EVERYTHING about the GOP. While Yosemite Sam certainly isn't 'perfect' in representing every value of the GOP, the argument here is that he would BETTER represent the GOP than an elephant does...
3) Changing the symbol
"Yosemite Sam is therefore not a symbol that the republicans should rally behind; to change their long standing symbol would be to change"
^ This here is the one argument that con keeps falling back on. Con refuses to acknowledge that Yosemite Sam would be be a better representation of the GOP than an elephant, since to do so would mean conceding the debate, so instead simply repeats the same claim over and over that changing their symbol to ANYTHING else would suddenly make the GOP unrepresentative of being traditional.
What if the GOP changed their symbol to an eagle? Or of Jesus waving an American flag? To think that those symbols would somehow be LESS representative of the Republican Party than an elephant just because the act of switching symbols is not being 'traditional' in the first place is a desperate and unfounded claim to make, and the same goes with changing the symbol to Yosemite Sam.
We are not debating if Yosemite Sam perfectly represents the GOP, we are about if he would BETTER represent the GOP values than an elephant, and also provide more benefits to the party than the current elephant symbol as well... Yosemite Sam appeals to a younger of generation of voter than the Elephant does not, and Yosemite Sam better represents a majority of the GOP's beliefs than an elephant as well, via gun rights, religiousosity, pro death penalty, use of force, etc.
1. The current elephant symbol is patriotic, wearing stars and stripes...Where's your US flag pin, Yosemite?
2. Elephants have an irrational fear of mice, something that won't threaten national security, just like republican god Ronald Reagan feared the number 666, which also is not a threat.
In fact Ronald Reagan would be an awesome symbol for the GOP, irrational fears and all.
3. It's not that Yosemite has been inaccurate shooting his pistols. Watch any time Sam has shot the guns. Nothing gets hit...nothing. We don't even know if the pistols actually do anything...seriously, watch any of the episodes in which he fires pistols, he never hits ANYTHING, let alone his adversary...that should scare off adversaries.
4. Pro keeps complaining "the fact that he has pistols which makes him a better fit for representing the GOP than an elephant, which only has tusks. "
Look at the image of the elephant that Pro provided...do you see any tusks?
Because the elephant has not tusks...thus using it as a detriment to the symbol is irrelevant. Yosemite's pistols are comical and very noticeable in the pictures provided. You wanna mess with a red headed spastic little person yielding toy pistols that don't ever hit anything?
Yes. I could sneeze and blow Yosemite over.
Watch the clip of the elephant that I provided...try blowing that over adversaries!
Now for some particulars...
Pro speaks in falsehoods:
"[Yosemite Sam] requests [adversaries] to say their prayers right before executing the death penalty on them."
So the death penalty is performed by the government, and this is actually at the heart of the death penalty issue associated with the GOP. Yosemite Sam cannot perform the death penalty, because he is not the government, and it is this particular characteristic of the death penalty that the GOP finds to be justice...our judicial system allowing for the governmental murder of a criminal. It's not just street-style executions. Also, Sam has not executed ANYONE EVER.
I have an apology to make...
I'm sorry that I wrongly associated the GOP with conservatism, and further, that I associated conservatism with protecting ideas and symbols of the party.
Oh wait...What does the verb conserve, the basis for conservatism, mean?
To hold on to and protect things.
If you conserve your money, do you change it for something else?
If you conserve your traditional values, do you change them for something else?
If you wish to apply your conservatism to a symbol that has been representing your conservatism for over 100 years, do you change the symbol?
Pro wants you to think that I'm somehow "derailing" this argument.
Except that Pro themselves said that the symbol should better represent traditional values.
One cannot ignore that in a party of "holding on to things," that "holding on to things" is one of the values.
It's not derailing; it's completely damning to Pro's argument.
Pro trying to point a "derailing" on my part is the desperate attempt of which Pro describes.
Is conserving something a traditional value for the GOP?
Then my argument is relevant.
If the party that is suspect of change were to actually progress and decide to admit that their over 100 year symbol is not the best, they would need a perfect symbol.
So Pro, whatcha got?
"Yosemite Sam certainly isn't 'perfect' in representing every value of the GOP." -Pro
Since one would need to change the mind of the unwavering steadfast to simply change the symbol, the symbol needs to be near perfect.
Remember, loyalty beyond reason is not an easy thing to break. Yosemite Sam is not "perfect" enough to do such a thing.
Really? Yosemite Sam is what the GOP should abandon their loyal symbol for because he's white, holds fake guns, and says "say yer prayers?"
The elephant's size and actual ability to fend off adversaries, without being bombed, appeals to the GOP way more.
Yosemite is comical, not substantial.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74063/
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.