• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

new rules for debate

O

Opteron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
629
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
new rules for debate:

if you look down 3 times or more you lose the debate
if you look directly at your opponent you win the debate, while if you look at the audience or the moderator then you lose the debate
if you are writing something down while your opponent is speaking, then you lose the debate
whoever interrupts the moderator or their opponent more wins the debate
if you call out your opponent about them changing their tax plan or lying about pre-existing conditions but are looking at the audience while speaking, then you still lose the debate
the words that you actually say are less important, but rather more important is where you are looking at when you are saying them
if you challenge your opponent about medicare or healthcare but didn't interrupt them enough times, then you lose the debate

these are now the new rules for nationally televised presidential debates.
 
:lamo

He blew it! Get over it.
 
Opteron said:
new rules for debate:

if you look down 3 times or more you lose the debate
if you look directly at your opponent you win the debate, while if you look at the audience or the moderator then you lose the debate
if you are writing something down while your opponent is speaking, then you lose the debate
whoever interrupts the moderator or their opponent more wins the debate
if you call out your opponent about them changing their tax plan or lying about pre-existing conditions but are looking at the audience while speaking, then you still lose the debate
the words that you actually say are less important, but rather more important is where you are looking at when you are saying them
if you challenge your opponent about medicare or healthcare but didn't interrupt them enough times, then you lose the debate

these are now the new rules for nationally televised presidential debates.
Click to expand...

Must be the "altitute"!!.............. :lamo
 
First of all, I don't really understand why Romney "won" the debate. He didn't convince anyone that his policies were better, he convinced people that his policies were different than what they actually are.

Secondly, there isn't really a correlation between who "wins" the first debate and who ultimately wins the presidency. After all, Kerry won the first debate against Bush, and Bob Ross won the debate against Clinton and Bush I.
 
JRog said:
First of all, I don't really understand why Romney "won" the debate. He didn't convince anyone that his policies were better, he convinced people that his policies were different than what they actually are.
Click to expand...

If you truly don't understand why Obama lost the debate, there is a wealth of post-debate analysis out there to read up on written by his supporters.
 
Opteron said:
new rules for debate:

if you look down 3 times or more you lose the debate
if you look directly at your opponent you win the debate, while if you look at the audience or the moderator then you lose the debate
if you are writing something down while your opponent is speaking, then you lose the debate
whoever interrupts the moderator or their opponent more wins the debate
if you call out your opponent about them changing their tax plan or lying about pre-existing conditions but are looking at the audience while speaking, then you still lose the debate
the words that you actually say are less important, but rather more important is where you are looking at when you are saying them
if you challenge your opponent about medicare or healthcare but didn't interrupt them enough times, then you lose the debate

these are now the new rules for nationally televised presidential debates.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Since, as you say, we have new rules, I guess Obama better learn what they are and how to deal with them, don't you think?

He might appreciate it if you clue him in.
 
nota bene said:
If you truly don't understand why Obama lost the debate, there is a wealth of post-debate analysis out there to read up on written by his supporters.
Click to expand...

The adherents to the church of Obunny have a hard time dealing with the failure of their Messiah
 
nota bene said:
If you truly don't understand why Obama lost the debate, there is a wealth of post-debate analysis out there to read up on written by his supporters.
Click to expand...
most of it being stylistic rather than substantive. 'Obama appeared tired'. 'Obama seemed not to show up'. 'Romney seemed more energetic'. The president called Romney out on medicare, his voucher system, healthcare and lack of Romney's coverage for pre-existing condtions, and Romneys whole tax plan, yet supposedly 'lost' because he didn't rehash the 47% remarks in a policy debate? I'm just surprised that so many people can be duped into paying attention to style vs. substance of the debate.
 
Last edited:
Opteron said:
new rules for debate:

if you look down 3 times or more you lose the debate
if you look directly at your opponent you win the debate, while if you look at the audience or the moderator then you lose the debate
if you are writing something down while your opponent is speaking, then you lose the debate
whoever interrupts the moderator or their opponent more wins the debate
if you call out your opponent about them changing their tax plan or lying about pre-existing conditions but are looking at the audience while speaking, then you still lose the debate
the words that you actually say are less important, but rather more important is where you are looking at when you are saying them
if you challenge your opponent about medicare or healthcare but didn't interrupt them enough times, then you lose the debate

these are now the new rules for nationally televised presidential debates.
Click to expand...

If you show up for a gunfight with a popsicle - you lose.
 
I think they need Denzel Washington to just sit them down at a table and say "Okay, explain it to me like I am a 3 year old".
 
I thought Romney made an important clarification regarding his position on taxes. I can't speak to the validity of his theory but I was relieved to hear him express it since up till now, he's been mysterious on the subject. He did a good job and really (IMHO alert) only shot himself in the foot once. Obama seemed flustered.

If you can "win" a debate, then Romney won this one. That bullet in his foot might hurt more than he realized though. I was actually shocked considering that everything else he said seemed rational.

In summation though, you can tell that both of them intend to spend us into bankruptcy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom