HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
 By Jack Lepiarz Nov. 21, 2005 Nobody likes a cheater--except maybe another cheater. Hard to say. Anyway, I bring this up to raise the issue of cheating in debates. Well, maybe not cheating, but taking cheap shots. There are a lot of ways to get a point across in a debate. Citing statistics and other facts, the use of colorful and powerful words such as "freedom" and "justice." If you don't believe that point, just go watch one of the presidential debates from last year, or the State of the Union addresses. But, I digress. The best way to demonstrate inability to debate is to simply change the subject. Too many times during the Bush/Kerry debates did one person jump from one point to another. Kerry might say "We still haven't found WMD's in Iraq," and Bush would reply by saying "We have brought freedom to millions of Iraqis." While that is most certainly a positive achievement, it is irrelevant. Kerry attacks Bush on the grounds of distorting facts, and Bush responds by turning focus somewhere else. It's political rhetoric. As Murphy Guyer put it, "Using words to achieve an emotional or political purpose." Why is it that people feel the need to criticize Clinton and Democrats as a way of defending their side in debates? Someone might argue that Bush did a poor job of uniting the country and be countered by someone saying that Clinton didn't accomplish that either. Does this exonerate Bush? Does Clinton's failure make Bush's failure seem more insignificant? Or could it be that they simply don't have a response? An underrated and uncommon virtue is the ability to admit that one is wrong, or at least to be willing to agree that the other side has made a valid point. Instead, many people, when confronted with the idea that they might be incorrect, look for reassurance in faulty news sources that make no attempt to cover their own bias. They flaunt ads for books attacking "liberal hypocrisy" in the middle of their articles. Is this a credible news source? Particularly in subjects like the economy and taxes, where statistics and facts are already distorted as it is. One conservative site devoted to taxes cites one statistic, saying that the top 5% of the wealthy pay 81% of taxes. But, they leave out two critical elements. First, they leave out that the top 5% are paying 81% of all INCOME taxes. They also neglect the fact that that same 5% also controls 93% of the money in this country. See how that changes the picture? The same concept can apply to politicians attacking each other. One candidate could accuse another of voting to raise taxes 400 times, but leaving out that those 400 votes were all on the same tax bill. Is this starting to make sense? My point is that debates have degenerated from actually raising issues and trying prove your point to simply trying to garner votes. Instead of offering the truth, politicians (and their cronies in the process) simply add to the distortion of facts in the media. Allow me to put it this way: if you have to lie to prove your point, what does this say about your point? ------------ About the author: Jack Lepiarz is a senior at Madison High School. Born in Waco, Texas, he lived with the Big Apple Circus for much of his early childhood, eventually moving to Madison, New Jersey, where he now resides. Although he is often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open-mind towards new ideas and treat people the way he would like to be treated. Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
