I just wanted to start one of these..discuss I havent had time to gather my thoughst

Wow, hell yeah, I totally agree! Noodles are awesome, man!!:D

no man . . . noodles suck. Think about the people with wheat allergies.

But seriously, I though that Kerry came out strong from this debate.

This one was fun to watch in a way. Much more heated, and there some great insults thrown at each other. Bush was much more at ease, and Kerry continued what he did well in the first "debate" Same points raised, nothing new, thought I liked the bits on abortion and the draft.

Wait, you are saying Bush was much more at ease? Interupting the moderator, not letting him speak. Bush interupted the moderator atleast 3 or 4 times, just to spurt out a response.

I thought Kerry gave a VERY good response on embryo stem cell research. Not letting religion get in the way of American rights. I thought Kerry did an amazing job, smacking down all the talk about flip-flopping, and just standing up and proving that he had a great plan and George Bush does not.

yeah you're my right. My opinion is wrong. You nailed it.

quick! someone post that picture!

What picture? I must see!!!!

That was his response for abortion. His said he wanted to increase stem cell research using embryos from fertility clinics

Hooray for "the internets."

>.>

I was making jokes about that one for about ten minutes. My mother felt like slapping me cuase I just didn't stop with the jokes about that.

"There are more?? I've only ever accessed the one . . . I'll have to look into this."

LOL.. I loved the "THAT'S why I'll be a better commander in cheif" I was rolling.. I was laughing so hard... Bush totally got served... I was like .. "OH.. OWNED!" someone needs to start a pool on the forums... Kerry or Bush... it'd be great to see it change with the debates.

These threads are pointless

If you support Bush, you will say Bush won.
If you support Kerry, you will say Kerry won.


Yes, this was a good debate, yes it raised some good issues, yes it had alot of the same issues.


Both candidates had their strong points and their weak points.

Both occasionally stuttered, both occasionally dumbfounded the other.



Yes, it is good to discuss your opinions and debate with one another, but don't make stupid, one sided remarks that only bash other's opinions.




Saying that, I think Bush did alot better than the last debate.

I thought Bush won that one.

I guess my opinion's wrong too SAJN!

And Bush interuptting the moderator? He obviously was passionate tonight. Charlie kept using the rebuttal sessions as his time to ask his own questions. Bush wanted to rebute Kerry, not answer a question from Charlie.

Bush cut off Charlie once. The other times he let him say what he needed too, but if he was just stating "President Bush, 30 seconds" or something Bush would start talking instantly. It showed Bush's passion for the debate I thought.

And did Kerry answer questions that Charlie would ask him? No, neither Bush or Kerry did.

What I'm getting ticked of from both Kerry and Edwards is the fact that on a new question they'll go back to debate or put in a last word on the previous question. They do it probably every other question and it just shows that they always feel like they have to have the 'last word'.

Me, I think Bush won it for me with the last question. On where he had to list 3 mistakes. His line stating "As a president I make decisions. I will stand by those decisions. If history judges otherwise, then I'll still stand by them." Can't remember the exact word usage - but it was like that.

Bush did it right there for me.

I love how on those things, people can talk for minutes on end with out saying anything meaningfull about the issue.
Some day we will look back on those things and laugh. Right now, I think I'll hide.

The thing is, he never actually answered the question.

I thought it was interesting that Kerry is now ahead in some of the polls. God, we can only hope.

Quite right, quite right. People hear what they want to hear.

Or if you're smart, you'll say neither won, since it was a debate. There was no win or lose. Sure maybe one debated better than the other, but you cannot "win" a debate.

I noticed that they both dodge questions a lot. I don't think either one answered the question on how they were going to cut the deficet.

You keep saying that, but people do WIN debates.

Debate - To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

In an argument there is a winner, in a debate there is a winner.

There isn't always a winner in an argument. Arguments can be left unsettled rather easily.

At times, Bush was getting destroyed. Many other times Kerry passed up opportunities and allowed Bush to have a "close debate". Some surprises:

1) Bush winning the environment debate pretty cleanly, even though he really shouldn't.
2) Bush pulling an "Al Gore" and getting angry. I think it's going to hurt him, even if it can be spun around to be a good thing. Passion is good, but many times he didn't need that passion on the point he was making. It's like he just lost control of his volume.


Bush was better all around this time. He got beat badly on Canada pharmaceuticals, one of the better moves by Kerry (pointing out the flip flop on Bush's part). Kerry, I think, really blows it on abortion. IMO, that's probably an issue you'd rather stay a centrist on and Bush did a better job of that than Kerry. Should the government spend money on abortion? Kerry's answer seems to say yes. Will many people agree? I doubt it, even if they favor legalization of abortion.

Just a few notes. I mostly half-listened.

I can debate Freelancer about the issues of our lives until the cows, sheep, pigs, rabbits, roosters, crows, chickens, and horses come home. I'm not going to change his belief system. He and I are both polar opposits of ideologies. The only think that can be accomplished is provoking thought into other people. I've done many debates. I was a member of the Junior State of America all through high school. Rarely did I "win", nor did the other guy. It was all thought provoking. I guess "winning" a debate is persuading the most people.

<3 .

I agree completely about your thought-provocation idea. Even if there is a clear winner, there is usually a point made by an opponent that will cause a long process of questioning. Gandalf, interestingly enough, I didn't used to be this way. I used to be a super ultra conservative Republican-to-the-core kind of guy who vehemently opposed gay marriage, abortion, etc.

I've changed completely in a few short years, and it took place by you guys planting ideas into my fragile mind. I got where I am today by excercising a lot of critical thinking for myself. By doing so, I've discovered what works for me individually. I enjoy debating quite a lot because it allows you to get to the core of why your opponent thinks the way he or she does. If you reach the point where you can look at an opponents point of view and honestly understand where he or she is coming from, then you've done well for yourself. I know I'm working on that myself, and it's very rewarding.

It's actually very possible to win a debate in a timed setting. Obviously it's subjective on the judge or in this case, judges.

If the majority of Americans feel Kerry or Bush won, then it's a win for them. They're job is to present their arguments in a way that gets the most people to believe they won.

As far as judging a debate on an individual level, it doesn't have to be all that subjective. Take the issue of environment. I think that Bush probably screws the environment in many ways. But he argued in his answer many different ways he helps the enviroment. Kerry attacks ONE of these ways, leaving the others cold conceded. Bush in his rebuttal reiterates one of the dropped points, that being technology spending and he adds Kyoto. Kerry CONCEDES Kyoto failed and argues---without any real substance/warrants---that Bush should have stuck with it. At that point, Bush clearly won the debate on that question.

Not to mention in this format many decisions can be made on whoever's rhetoric will stick the best in a positive way.

He said near the end of it that if he had to list mistakes, it would be appointments he had made to boards. He didn't go into which appointments those were.

I think he addressed the question properly, as they probably were looking for the answer they wanted from Bush - "It was a mistake going to Iraq", etc.

Also, I think that for any debate - regardless of what it is - it is always going to be harder for the side trying to defend its position. It's like work - no matter how good things are going at work someone there bickers about something.

Hell, someone could debate the Pope or Mother Teresa (RIP) and probably make them look like scums.

Oriental seasoned noodles for me, please.:cool:

I just thought it was funny because I was on [url]www.factcheck.org[/url] earlier today and read about how the Bush Campaign was touting that Kerry had voted 98 times for tax increases and factcheck.org proved it false, then Bush said it. I laughed.

I also laughed really hard when Bush was like "Do you need some wood?" Loved it.

This was a fun one. I really like Bush on this one, but Kerry still came out strong. Still voting for Kerry, but Bush did prove he had a good side.

Interesting, Freelancer. Curious. What brought you 180? Was it just seeing the events unfold that changed your viewpoint?

As for the debate. It was a good one. Both candidates did well. I'll admit, Kerry nailed Bush on some issues. The aformentioned Canada drug thing, I don't think Bush saved grace on that one. Going into domestic policy, I knew Kerry was going to have an advantage in that. The economy is NOT sour...but it is not the best it could be. There was one thing that really bugged me from both candidates. It was over the whole "job creation" issue. How does either create jobs? I really didn't get an answer to that question. I heard a lot of "my plan will create jobs!" but no details. I believe Bush did manage to hold up to Kerry on domestic issues. Bush made references to Kerry's liberal record on spending. He got some quick jabs in there.

Bush was definitely strong on the Iraq issue. I didn't think we were "rush into war." I felt Bush did everything he could. He went to the U.N. He went before the U.S. Congress. Saddam STILL was defiant. Thus BY U.N. RESOLUTION ACCORDANCE, we took action. But Kerry did point out that the lack of WMDs is a cause for concern. If this intelligence was bad, someone REALLY has to own up. And the American public MUST know this. I would like to say that they still are there, but at this point in time, it's really starting to look like they were destroyed or...worse...sold off.

Overall, I think Bush did well. I didn't see the last debate but from what people tell me, he did better than the first one. That'll help Bush out.

My $0.02

This is presidential candidate John Kerry. If elected president, I promise to give you FUNK for four years...

*big beat starts*



I love that song

I haven't given it much though, JediGandalf. I've just naturally evolved this way. I'll have to give it some more thought sometime.

My favorite portions of the debate were the two instances when Kerry talked about the labels Bush was trying to tie to him. I just loved it. "Quit throwing the labels around. Labels don't mean anything." Etc. I thought he really kicked *** on that part. I agree that Bush got off way too easily on the environment issue. I was impressed with Bush, to tell you the truth. I was expecting him to be a bit rough around the edges, but I think he was up there right along with Kerry the entire time.

That said, it's so much easier for me to relate to Kerry. He was so calm, rational, and low-key. He was very appealing to me. Whereas Bush tended to be a little more.. vigourous.. I guess? Personally I was *extremely* impressed with Kerry's response to that woman's abortion question. It was so obvious it was a very loaded question. The way he responded to that showed incredible wisdom on his part, perhaps at the expense of popularity. I encourage anyone who didn't hear it to look up the transcript sometime. I was also impressed by his answer to the court justice question.

I'm really anticipating the next debate, when I hope education will be discussed thoroughly.

Hope that he loses, that is!

Seriously, though, as a Bush supporter I'll tell you why I thought he won. He answered the questions asked of him far more directly than Kerry did with the exception of the three mistakes question which Bush could not answer for a number of reasons.

Bush high points - (paraphrasing) "That almost made me want to scowl." and "I own a lumber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?"

Bush low points - Cutting off the moderator and not capitalizing of some Kerry blunders

Typical Bushisms - At least a couple of made up words along with "internets"

If you think Kerry won on that embryonic stem cell question I beg to differ. The question dealt with the fact that that is the least promising method of stem cell research. He never answered that womans question. And, contrary to popular belief, Bush has done nothing to ban research. He limited federal funding of it.

I'm going to start reviewing transcripts of these debates. I do know there was some issue on Iran that I thought the president smoked Kerry on but I forget the substance of it.

Overall I give a slight edge to Bush on performance. Slightly better than a tie, that is. On substance I give a wider margin to Bush. Because I tend to agree with him? Partially, but mostly because he did a better job a addressing the specific questions asked.

I like these debates. They are helping me decide who to vote for. If I vote for Bush, I know what I'm getting, even though I don't agree with all of it. But over all it would be satisfactory for me. However, Kerry seems better to me in how he would do things, but politicians as a whole will give promises and say things just to please people and get the vote, more so with Kerry. If I did vote for Kerry, I would do so because I like his views and agree with him more than Bush, unlike the various uninformed pretenders who just have a vendetta against Bush simply because he's a republican and everything he does must be wrong because of that. They think it's perfectly acceptable to maliciously bash him at every turn and fuel their arguments only by hate and other emotions. These people are shameful excuses for politically thoughtful citizens. The reason I was hesitant to openly say I might support Kerry months ago is because I didn't want to be associated with people like that.

I don't feel like getting into major political ideologies because most of the people on this site have set beliefs one way or the other on issues like abortion, the environment, yadda yadda yadda. What I WILL say is a totally non-partisan issue. George Bush has taken the largest Federal Budget Surplus EVER and turned it into the largest deficit EVER. To me that just shows a total lack of fiscal discipline. As much as I know everyone hates raising taxes, if we start it now it'll be only a moderate increase. If we have another 4 years of Bush, it is very likely he will have no choice but to do what his father did over a decade ago and raise taxes - because when we have a deficit, we have certain payments we HAVE to make to our creditors. Certainly, whoever took over after him would definitely have no choice but to increase the tax burden. THE LONGER WE WAIT TO DO IT THE HARDER IT WILL BE. John Kerry's plan only affects those who make over $200,000 a year and will (supposedly) cut the deficit in half. I'm not crazy about John Kerry, but at least he has a plan to get the country back on the road to fiscal responsibility. George Bush seems to have the idea that if he can just keep the crushing debt from killing us until November he's as good as golden.

That's my spiel. It's just one aspect of the election, and granted it's just my opinion, but believe me when I say it's an educated and well-researched one.

Ah, but if we lower taxes, it will improve the economy! Bye-bye defecit!

Not the way Bush is spending.

>.>

Lowering taxes doesn't magically improve the economy. That much should be evident by the fact that there are fewer jobs in America today than there were in 2000. The reason the unemployment rate doesn't seem so bad is due to a massive number of disenfranchised workers: as in, people who have given up looking for work, or who have taken lower paying jobs beneath their skill level. While it is true that lowering taxes can help a somewhat sluggish economy, they WON'T help the financial disaster that is the US economy right now.

Um...that made no sense. The reason there are less jobs now is a combination of Bush going "OMG KEKEKE TAX CUT RUSH ^_________________________^" and 9/11 (to a much smaller extent).