As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

RESOLVED: Presidential Debates Are An Insult To Us And Need Fixing

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited October 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
At least, that's what the folks at FDL think.

And frankly, I agree with them. These aren't debates, they're a sham. If we're going to do debates, let's do them right:
  1. First off, no more negotiating the format. The debate organizers will set the debate format, and if the candidate doesn't like it, then he or she is welcome to not show up.
  2. Second, let's make it a real debate. That means periods for proposing, rebuttal, and counterpoint.
  3. Third, lets have some real topics that the candidates can really sink into. The topics as is are too broad and vague for solid answers. Narrower, more focused debates are much more powerful.

Let's have a real discussion in front of the American people, not this constrained bullshit.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on

Posts

  • Options
    necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Is this where we discuss Topicality and Inherency?

    Maybe a turn to add a Nuclear War harm?

    necroSYS on
  • Options
    necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Seriously, though, the current joke that the debates have become is the result of decades of candidates unwilling to take a chance on being painted like a fool in front of the American people. Before the advent of radio and TV, debates weren't the same high-stakes event they are now.

    The camera is unforgiving. Nixon lost his debate against JFK partially because he was sweating so profusely.

    So, as a result, the debate committees have to make compromise after compromise until we get the bullshit jokes that are the modern political debate.

    Really, in order to reform modern Presidential campaign debates, you'd have to reform modern Presidential campaign politics.

    necroSYS on
  • Options
    TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    1. First off, no more negotiating the format. The debate organizers will set the debate format, and if the candidate doesn't like it, then he or she is welcome to not show up.

    Let's have a real discussion in front of the American people, not this constrained bullshit.

    I believe I've located the critical flaw in this proposal.

    Seriously though, I'm fairly confident that the reason all that organizing exists is because if you were going to have a good old fashioned debate, the candidates have a lot of room to come up stupid, and it's not worth the risk to them.

    TehSloth on
    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I agree with this absolutely, the United States has a huge tradition of real debating throughout high school and so forth with debate teams etc, why do these organizations even stand for what we get in the presidential races being called debates?

    Even a 50/50 format selection, where each candidate had absolute control over the format for their debate would be better than what we have today.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    necroSYS wrote: »
    Seriously, though, the current joke that the debates have become is the result of decades of candidates unwilling to take a chance on being painted like a fool in front of the American people. Before the advent of radio and TV, debates weren't the same high-stakes event they are now.

    What debates are you referring to?

    moniker on
  • Options
    necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    necroSYS wrote: »
    Seriously, though, the current joke that the debates have become is the result of decades of candidates unwilling to take a chance on being painted like a fool in front of the American people. Before the advent of radio and TV, debates weren't the same high-stakes event they are now.

    What debates are you referring to?

    The ones where people had to show up in person to watch them. Like the original Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    necroSYS on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    necroSYS wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    necroSYS wrote: »
    Seriously, though, the current joke that the debates have become is the result of decades of candidates unwilling to take a chance on being painted like a fool in front of the American people. Before the advent of radio and TV, debates weren't the same high-stakes event they are now.

    What debates are you referring to?

    The ones where people had to show up in person to watch them. Like the original Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    That was for the Senate, not the Presidency. Kennedy-Nixon was the first ever Presidential general election debate to occur in our history. It then had a 16 year lull. We have only ever had 9 series of debates between Presidential candidates.

    moniker on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    TehSloth wrote: »
    1. First off, no more negotiating the format. The debate organizers will set the debate format, and if the candidate doesn't like it, then he or she is welcome to not show up.

    Let's have a real discussion in front of the American people, not this constrained bullshit.

    I believe I've located the critical flaw in this proposal.

    Seriously though, I'm fairly confident that the reason all that organizing exists is because if you were going to have a good old fashioned debate, the candidates have a lot of room to come up stupid, and it's not worth the risk to them.

    This.

    However, how about passing a law requiring candidates to engage in such a debate? Would that require a Constiutional Ammendment?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Canadian political debates on the other hand are interesting and awesome.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Options
    CherrnCherrn Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    In Denmark the primary parties are divided into both liberal and conservative factions, and stand across from each other at the same table, with a moderator in the middle. The debates can get quite heated, but the politicians are generally very professional, and they stop when the moderator tells them to, throwing the word around to each person, and delegating responses accordingly.

    I don't know, maybe if both presidential and vice presidential candidates were in the same room together, they could support each other, thus lessening the chances of major gaffes. They really need to move away from these rehearsed responses and engage in direct dialogue. It feels like two separate speeches rather than a debate, really. You could tell Bob Schieffer wanted to get them to talk to each other, but you have to change the entire format of the thing if you really expect that to succeed.

    Cherrn on
    All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I don't know, maybe if both presidential and vice presidential candidates were in the same room together, they could support each other, thus lessening the chances of major gaffes.
    The problem is that a candidate with an inexperienced VP candidate would never let he or she speak. For example, Palin.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Schieffer hasn't gone yet, he's domestic policy and that's next week. You're thinking of Brokaw. And yes, this last debate's format sucked. The first one was much more loose and allowed for a 5-10 minute talking period where they each confronted each other while the moderator injected himself to try to keep it on topic. That one was actually interesting, and made me like Jim Lehrer that much more.

    Honestly, they should probably just scrap the "town hall" format since the people are so heavily screened in the first place and the moderator controls what question gets asked. It's basically just interactive props and plausible deniability on Brokaw's part for asking shitty questions. Especially that last one. They might as well have been asked what kind of a plant they'd be.

    moniker on
  • Options
    CherrnCherrn Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Oh, sorry, I was talking about Lehrer, not Schieffer. In the beginning he made all those "you may address the senator directly" comments, but quickly stopped. It would've made it more interesting, though.
    Couscous wrote: »
    The problem is that a candidate with an inexperienced VP candidate would never let he or she speak. For example, Palin.

    Well, it wouldn't be a problem if they just chose someone who wasn't retarded.

    Cherrn on
    All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
  • Options
    enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Obligatory link to the Citizens' Debate Commission, which is trying to wrest control of the presidential debates away from the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    enc0re on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Cherrn wrote: »
    Oh, sorry, I was talking about Lehrer, not Schieffer. In the beginning he made all those "you may address the senator directly" comments, but quickly stopped. It would've made it more interesting, though.
    Couscous wrote: »
    The problem is that a candidate with an inexperienced VP candidate would never let he or she speak. For example, Palin.

    Well, it wouldn't be a problem if they just chose someone who wasn't retarded.

    Let's be realistic. This isn't some French-speaking country where a Philosophy PhD can be President. If anything, the debates of tomorrow will involve kegstands and/or mechanical bull riding.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Cherrn wrote: »
    Oh, sorry, I was talking about Lehrer, not Schieffer. In the beginning he made all those "you may address the senator directly" comments, but quickly stopped. It would've made it more interesting, though.
    Couscous wrote: »
    The problem is that a candidate with an inexperienced VP candidate would never let he or she speak. For example, Palin.

    Well, it wouldn't be a problem if they just chose someone who wasn't retarded.

    Let's be realistic. This isn't some French-speaking country where a Philosophy PhD can be President. If anything, the debates of tomorrow will involve kegstands and/or mechanical bull riding.

    I support this new debate format, mainly because I'm confident than Obama would kick McCain's ass at it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Cherrn wrote: »
    Oh, sorry, I was talking about Lehrer, not Schieffer. In the beginning he made all those "you may address the senator directly" comments, but quickly stopped. It would've made it more interesting, though.
    Couscous wrote: »
    The problem is that a candidate with an inexperienced VP candidate would never let he or she speak. For example, Palin.

    Well, it wouldn't be a problem if they just chose someone who wasn't retarded.

    Let's be realistic. This isn't some French-speaking country where a Philosophy PhD can be President. If anything, the debates of tomorrow will involve kegstands and/or mechanical bull riding.

    I support this new debate format, mainly because I'm confident than Obama would kick McCain's ass at it.

    I support this because it would be hilarious.

    TehSloth on
    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Narian wrote: »
    Canadian political debates on the other hand are interesting and awesome.
    Seriously. The format this year was great.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crdk8Vns2BU

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Canadian political debates on the other hand are interesting and awesome.
    Seriously. The format this year was great.

    Holy crap, that is awesome. Fuck this shit, I am so moving to Canada.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Canadian political debates on the other hand are interesting and awesome.
    Seriously. The format this year was great.

    Holy crap, that is awesome. Fuck this shit, I am so moving to Canada.

    Matrijs on
  • Options
    ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Yea, 8-).



    In all seriousness, a roundtable debate does work well, especially with many candidates. If the states did this and included 3rd parties I believe that it would be more hard hitting and less like mini speeches by each candidate while the other guy just happens to be standing there.

    Shurakai on
Sign In or Register to comment.