Battle Tax Cuts - Iron Blogger Republican - What would have been my closing statement and a disclaimer
My understanding is that due to a mutual agreement between the Challenger and the Chairman, the remainder of this debate has been cancelled. The Chairman, who knows how hard I worked on my closing statements, has allowed me a paragraph or two to explain how my closing argument would have gone and to post the disclaimer that I would have posted AFTER the scoring was official.
If you are interested in the full text of my closing remarks, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will forward it to you.
Basically, it is a summary of the points I felt Stirling didn't respond to, coupled with the simple fact that Stirling, while more than equipped to defeat me in a straight-up battle of economy, didn't read the guidelines. He even posted a third rebuttal at one point, which I don't bring up to point out anything negative but to say that he had ideas of what our site was that didn't mesh with the guidelines. I was arguing for IB points and he was arguing what he THOUGHT the site should be like. I flesh this out with no snark or even sarcasm (very different from my first three posts - which I thought were funny and snarky but everyone else thought were crude and mean and snarky) and it sounds much nicer than that in the full version, and there's a clever bit about dodgeball in there. I then encourage visitors from Daily Kos to read the battle I had with Rose and notice it was a different me then, so there must be a reason for handling the debate the way I did.
Then there is this, a sort of disclaimer that I was going to post only after the final scores were posted:
Post-Debate Apology and Revelation from the IB Republican
First of all, I apologize to the Iron Blog readership for leaning so hard on the sarcasm this time out. I didn’t see a choice other than simply forfeiting the debate as we will see in a moment.
Also, I would like to apologize to Stirling for my use of sarcasm. I trust he and his friends will read my previous posts and the debate with Rose (where I was my normal me, prompting Rose at the end to say on her website that it was hard to debate me because I was so sweet!) and see who I usually am.
So I intentionally used sarcasm, simply because from the Chairman’s post announcing the topic, I knew I was in big trouble, and not because I thought Stirling knew more than I did about economics.
See, I am a liberal Christian and a conservative in politics. This skews my thoughts on certain issues.
I am, by way of revelation, against Bush’s tax cuts. I am a conservative, and I think Reagan’s cuts were ideal for the situation the country was in AND I could defend both them and small government, but I think cuts are not good for where we are right now. In fact, as you know if you’ve read my comments in the past, I’m not sold on Bush himself, but think he’s the lesser of evils.
I also have to admit that it intrigued me as being a true test of debate skill: to defend successfully a position you don’t hold!
Nevertheless, I took what I saw as the only route available to me that could still win: become a pro-Bush hyper-conservative. Even on Stirling’s own website, I posted defending my arguments in favor of George W. I intentionally, on Sunday night, read over 30 of Ann Coulter’s archived columns and tried as hard as I could to channel her into every post here other than the closing. I went to new blogs in assumed personas and tried out approaches to defending Bush’s tax cuts.
Read the death penalty me and the tax cut me… same guy? No, but once the topic was announced it was either that or delay the debates yet another week. I didn’t even email that revelation to the Chairman, who is a growing-close friend of mine, because I wanted the opportunity to see new faces from Daily Kos to go on.
I knew from the first moment that I could make it close if we disagreed and I battled him on the appropriate stage. However, there was no way I could win if I thought he was better at economics than me (not smarter, thank you) AND if I agreed with what he was likely to say.
So I played the game. I made him play on my ball field. When I heard he was letting me have it on his website, I even went there and stirred the pot more. Dan Coulter! More than any economics training or debate training, my acting classes carried me in this debate.
We now return you to your regular Dan Champion, already in progress. From now on, let’s confirm the topic with the debaters JUST before posting it: in this case, a tweak to "tax cuts" from "Bush’s tax cuts" would have made all the difference and I could have conceded that Bush was using them as a political ploy and still debated the usefulness of tax cuts when used appropriately.
The worst part of the week, by the way, was when I thought I had offended Pineapple Girl with the new snark. I hope you know I adore you, PG.
I promise to be good from now on.
P.S. Here's where I need the affirmation and the love, so I don't go away angry or hurt.