Hi All! Here are the official proponent arguments. Please pick a proposition to write a rebuttal to and let us know which one you have chosen. That way we know who is working on what, so we're better organized and not duplicating each other's work in the short time available. I will pick up the slack and work on what is not chosen. Starchild has indicated that he wants all the great ideas that you guys have, and he will be happy to incorporate them into the final rebuttals submitted on Monday morning. Since he is the pickiest of us all when it comes to words, I think it best to let him finish them up. If you prefer to write the rebuttal and not have it tampered with, then just write and post it, and we'll go with that. For me, the only important goal here is to come up with 4 strong rebuttals that will bother the government lovers in this city who will end up voting for these 4 measures anyway.
As to the question of what to address in the rebuttal argument, Marcy's question is pertinent. I think that a rebuttal should address specific nonsensical points made in the proponent arguments, independent of what we wrote in our opposing arguments. It's also our opportunity to make points that we may not have addressed in our opposing arguments. Many times I have read the arguments in the voter pamphlet, and to me it seemed like they said exactly the same thing in both their regular argument and rebuttal. Aside from being boring to the reader, that tells me that their reasons to vote for or against their measure weren't that strong that they couldn't think of something additionally convincing to put in their writings. When you get up to 550 free words to potentially reach hundreds of thousand people, why repeat your argument? Of course I always feel that the pro-big government folks do this more than the mini-government folks!
As for E, since we have two great arguments with two very different styles, I suggest that you (Mike) write the rebuttal taking your argument and just tailoring it down to 250 words addressing the proponents' silly claims. That way we have an argument that pokes fun at the politicians and then one of pure Libertarianism. The best of both worlds.
Lastly, unfortunately I do not have the actual arguments we wrote that will be published in the pamphlet right now. With 167 versions floating around, I'd also like to see which versions actually got selected. The version of E that Starchild posted yesterday actually looked a bit different than the ones I submitted because Les had a reworked version that I thought looked a bit stronger than the original one so I conjured up 25 versions of the reworked one. I will try to hook up with Starchild tomorrow (Saturday), and we will try to get the selected versions posted so you can see the actual selected opposing argument.
Thanks again to all for your hard work!