Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard
Repug,
Agreeing to disagree implies some level of respect flowing between each party. I have no respect for you or your beliefs. Literally none. You're a dumb college kid who knows nothing about how the world works and is supporting some feel-good candidate while not even bothering to become informed as to what that candidate stands for. People like you are driving this country into the ground.
|
Damn that was harsh, and
awesome. I want to see a political OST between these two. I want Repug to tell me why I should vote for Obama, and I want UB to tell me why I should vote for McCain. I want to see an organized point, counterpoint structure. Like a presidential debate.
I would like f3lix to pretend he is Joe Voter and come up with the 3-5 of the most important debate topics to him and start the thread. Examples like Iraq War, Economy, health care, which is the best candidate? Each topic is brought up one at a time. Each person has a maximum number of 3 posts to explain their position/attack the other.
In each post each person cannot ask more than 2 direct or rhetorical questions. But the question must be answered in the next reply by the other person directly.
The topics are first come first serve, the first "first" reply is a maximum of 300 words. It should be short, and to the point. If you get beaten to the first reply you have to edit your post to address the issues/question that the first "first" reply brought up. Posts after the first "first" reply can be as long or short as you would like. Each person's third reply cannot contain any questions, the third reply is time to wrap up your argument.
Both of you seem to feel that you are well informed and capable of arguing for your side. I vomit when I watch TV pundits and refuse to watch them, but if you guys would have this conversation I would really be interested to read it and think it would be quite helpful. Not to mention it would be awesome if one of you made the other sound like an idiot. do the two agree?