Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2
From	Message
deadofknight 27-Jul-07, 03:41	Opening Statement Position: Negative It is wholly premature and unreasonable for the Democratic party to lean out on the ledge of leadership, simply for the sake of perceived leadership. The US has enough mending to do, that new, aggressive programs and fresh ideas are hard to deliver when someone needs to get out a broom and sweep up the mess left by the failures of the Bush Presidency. The concept that one could run on the premise that "I am not Bush " is as valid as any. The American people may want exactly that. A fresh face and a new perspective. That perspective is difficult if not impossible to state and defend without knowing now what all the problems are that will be faced in the coming years, sue to the lack of leadership shown over the prior eight years. In fact, it is likely enough for the average Joe to know that someone sober is at the helm and doesn't have much of an agenda except to straighten out the course this ships being headed on. That might well enough be the job inherited by the next president--so why deceive the American people with platform reforms and empty promises of universal health care when we need to take care of the business at hand first. How many nations have simply wanted a steady hand at the wheel? Abraham Lincoln was such a president, although a Republican, his second inaugural address proffers no new programs or "Universal Anything". No position on a multitude of ideas he could have discussed, yet he narrowed that speech, that short few paragraphs, to one idea. It is time for us to mend up our differences and heal a nation torn by a war. Could we ask more than this from our next President. Likely not, and to do so is to simply misstate the urgency of the current affairs we are now facing. The number of positions and issues debated in this contest are likely a secondary or tertiary concern to a tired people, looking for someone to start the mending. To define that lofty goal as "lacking" is a false premise and one that is not required for the next president to be successful. To succeed, and succeed boldly, at tying up the wounds we have faced from our relentless battles against peoples unknown and to end the fear of financial ruin at the hands of a few captains of industry and to see us through 4 more years of confrontation from the Extreme Muslim factions that hate America will be enough and more. Me
deadofknight 27-Jul-07, 03:42	Now is part where Pawn scores the debate... as either a draw or one or the other winning a point. The Debaters
saintinsanity 27-Jul-07, 05:34	Alright! I was sorely displeased at the lack of mudslinging between you two. But, after careful deliberations I have decided..... Dok wins! Woot! Vote for DOK!
softaire 27-Jul-07, 07:27	I'm eagerly waiting for round 2, or topic 2. Round 1 was a resounding success, and as per usual, I was swayed first by the first speaker and then again by the last speaker to speak (or the last argument to have been read). But, upon review, I'll side with Pawni that DOK wins this one.
deadofknight 27-Jul-07, 23:35	Question Which position do you think I support? DoK
eqj2 28-Jul-07, 10:30	Ohhhhhh I know this one A friend told me this. Its a brain game...the side you're on matters not. Am I right? =0
deadofknight 28-Jul-07, 12:57	Nope... but you're warm... DoK
softaire 28-Jul-07, 14:01	DOK is a good debater. I can't say from the arguments that I know which side he actually believes (if there is a belief in one and not the other), as both argumnents had plenty of merit. It would be interesting for some of those in the club aligned with Kop, Jeff, Qiwi etc. to weigh-in. I would venture a guess that Dok actually supports BOTH positions of the argument as both positions seem to be reasons that the original premise is true..."that the Left will NOT engage in anything possibly harmful to their plan to acquire more political power". In the affirmative, it points out that the Left feels confident that they will win and should not endanger that lead by gambling and discussing controversial issues that might "blow it". In the negative, the left feels confident of victory and chooses to avoid a possible "blow it" scenario by saying the Public only wants/needs a "non-Bush" president and therefore avoiding any potentially new discussions about controversial issues. Therefore, I say BOTH.
saintinsanity 30-Jul-07, 04:51	It seems to me That there is something that exists beyond perception. It might not even exist, for all intents and purposes, but I believe it is there. It might be the spirit realm, or god, or magic, or something else altogether. We may not all be able to detect it or measure it in any way. But I argue that it is something real and we can each touch it.
saintinsanity 30-Jul-07, 16:20	well if you can't see it, it isn't there, so shut up you big lug nut. That isn't even a proper debate topic, one can only argue their subjective experience of objective reality, and you are ugly. Go dig a hole.
softaire 30-Jul-07, 16:34	As it stands right now... the ref. has taken over the debating and is now debating himself, appearantly slinging mud that dok and himself wouldn't do.... do I have that correct?
deadofknight 01-Aug-07, 17:55	Sodtie pretty much...the funny thing is, after I won I left the building, turned out the lights and locked it up....so..... DoK
Pages:  « Previous 1 2

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.