Debate

I've been having an interesting and intense conversation with my friend Trakker that has spilled over between several posts on his blog and mine. Check out these posts and comment sections:

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/05/a-stupid-tone-deaf-remark-a-thoughtless-apology.html

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/05/cleaning-up-after-the-bush-occupation.html

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/06/lefty-obama-supporters-are-viciously-dangerously-nauseatingly-self-deluded.html

http://seeforyourself.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-wont-vote-every-conversation-with.html

I argue that Democrats in general and Obama in particular don't deserve support. I say not voting is better than voting for them, and that national elections are a huge distraction from meaningful political issues, designed to create the false appearance of democracy.

Trakker says that the system might be broken, but our only option is to fix it or replace it. He says that Obama represents the best chance we have of fixing it, and so is worthy of support. And since President Obama is the only realistic alternative to President McCain, we especially should support Obama.

While I admire Trakker's passion and his ultimate goals, I think he's chosen a bad strategy in pursuit of those goals. I think his arguments are weak, mostly misleading emotion, and don't really address the points I've made. But, I would think that, since I'm arguing against him, so feel free to tell me otherwise. Good debate is healthy. Go check it out!