• 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 type of debate.

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,381
Reaction score
20,154
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like !!
 
Bad idea. You need to propose what you want to do at the same time that you need to trash the other opponent at the opportune time.
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

That would be great
 
I think it is instructive to be able to say "This is my plan and here is why it makes more sense than my opponent's plan which does ....." so I vote no. What I think might help would be if they were put on different stages or had some sort of barrier between them so they could not see the other one and would therefore be less tempted to ramp up the theatrics if they could not see the other person's reaction or if there was no live audience to be performing to to gauge reaction.
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Great Idea!
 
In theory great.

In practice, not so much. Its actually somewhat easy to talk about your opponent without directly talking about your opponent, and essentially this is what would happen which would cause the other to complain about it whenever the first person did it and it'd generally spiral out from there I think.
 
Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like - Like !!

We already have them bragging ad nauseum what they will do as President. And we have them attacking each other just as relentlessly. The debates add little new in that regard.

The way it goes now:
Candidate A: I want to cut the deficit in half in X years.
Candidate B: You say that, but your record has been to increase the deficit. . . .yadda yadda
Candidate A: But your intention is to. . . .yadda yadda. . . .

And so it goes back and forth with little or new information provided. All the debate accomplishes is which candidate speaks more eloquently, provides opportunity to decide which candidate looks more presidential, and which is more likable. All of which are extremely poor reasons to vote for somebody.

I would like a Presidential debate in which they are not allowed to attack each other or their record but will provide a defense for their plans:

1. Candidate A: I want to cut the deficit in half within X years and will do so in the following way. . . .
2. Candidate B: The X group has studied your plan and determined that it cannot be done or would result in . . . . .
3. Candidate A: I have had X and Y and Z groups study my plan and they have all determined that it will work, will not cause the issues you suggest, and here is why. . . .
 
In theory great.

In practice, not so much. Its actually somewhat easy to talk about your opponent without directly talking about your opponent, and essentially this is what would happen which would cause the other to complain about it whenever the first person did it and it'd generally spiral out from there I think.

It would require a good moderator and strict rules, such as if the mod thinks you are breaking the rule you get a warning, if you do it again you lose your time on that topic.
 
It would require a good moderator and strict rules, such as if the mod thinks you are breaking the rule you get a warning, if you do it again you lose your time on that topic.

I think it's super important to remember that the National Republican Party and the National Democratic Party "own" the debates. There's no way they'd come to consensus on something like this -- though I agree that'd be okay fine with me.

Since the League of Women Voters stepped away from the debates, they've become little more than circuses.
 
Well a good moderator would get the darn answers out of them. "Gov. Romney, which loopholes and deductions are you going to end?" "Well, we are going to broaden the base and lower the rate by closing these so I will wait and work with Congress" "Okay, Gov. Romney, perhaps I was not clear--your plan is predicated on these changes, tell me some which would be acceptable or unacceptable to you" "Well, I will wait for Congress...." "Well, we will wait for you. Perhaps if I give the President three minutes to talk about something else and come back to you, you can specifically state what some loopholes you want to close. If not, We can give the President three more minutes and come back and ask you the same question again and so on" Embarrassment is a powerful tool to be used against a politician to get the answer you ask for.
 
It would require a good moderator and strict rules, such as if the mod thinks you are breaking the rule you get a warning, if you do it again you lose your time on that topic.

And that's were the plan falls apart. :)
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

hmmm.. 90 minutes of silence then huh?

I like it. :lol:
 
In theory great.

In practice, not so much. Its actually somewhat easy to talk about your opponent without directly talking about your opponent, and essentially this is what would happen which would cause the other to complain about it whenever the first person did it and it'd generally spiral out from there I think.

Not to mention who's going to call the other guy on his BS?
 
Then it's not really a debate. It's just each side taking a turn giving a mini-speech.

I'd like to see it go the other way.
Each candidate has 2 1/2 minutes to speak. Back and forth twice. Then 5 minutes to argue. However they do.
Then repeat this for the full 90 minutes.
The moderator would do nothing, other than cut off the mic of each candidate when not his/her turn to talk. Both mics on during the argument session.
Time limit also would be controlled by cutting off the mic. At 2 minutes there would be a "ding" warning. At 2 1/4 minutes a buzzer would sound. At 2 1/2 minutes the microphone went dead.

Let's the candidates each pick their own topic. Say whatever each wants about whatever each wants. In two 2 1/2 minute segments, and then argue with each other for 5. Voters can decide how the feel about argument interruptions, accusations etc.

In short, I don't think there should be a moderator, only a time keeper. That is how "debate" actually works anyway. It was the media that gave itself importance to the moderator. I don't care what the moderator thinks is important. Its up to each candidate to state what he/she thinks is most important. That also would tell us much about each candidate.
 
This has been discussed many times. I would prefer to drop the current debate style all together since it is nothing more than a playground scrap.
Two formats - a closed discussion and a town hall type

Closed - 90-120 minutes. Each candidate is given 5-10 minutes to answer a question from the moderator. If the candidate starts attacking the other or talking about his opponents "failed" policies, their mic is turned off until they get back on track. If the person goes over their mic is turned off. If the other candidate interrupts they lose time and their mic is turned off. Each candidate is given a 5 minute closing statement but there can be no attacks of dings.

Town Meeting- Basically the same except that the candidate must answer the question being asked and not side track. if they do yep you guessed it.

Before each discussion the moderator will have the candidates look at a copy of the agreement that they or their party signed prior to the debate and each is asked if this is the agreement and if the signature on the bottom of it is theirs. Insurance policy against whining.
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Not bad, but I'd expand my desires to inlcude all candidates that qualify to be on the ballot in enough states to mathmatically (electorally) become president. The way it used to be when The League of Women Voters used to host the debates.
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

i support this fully.
 
an absurd notion, actually
there is nothing which would prevent both candidates from lying

at least now, each one of the two candidates can call those expressed lies of the other for what they are found to be
 
I say, let 'em scrap. Let them duke it out verbally and let the people decide who handled themselves better in the scrap. I say this because the common stated view is that it would be a free-for-all which I disagree. You pay a price when you hit too many low blows. You have to get your point out there but not come off in such a dickish way that you leave a bad taste in the views' eyes. So if you go in there with a gloves off free-for-all mentality, you will lose no matter how much more words you get in... because you could easily be countered with simply having a better disposition.

It's a debate. It's more than just words. It's also presentation.
 
It would require a good moderator and strict rules, such as if the mod thinks you are breaking the rule you get a warning, if you do it again you lose your time on that topic.

Let's up the ante and hook them to electro-shock machines and they get zapped when their time is up and they are still talking. That would be interesting to watch.
 
I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?
I would like to end all the debates and go back to Congress voting only.
 
Not bad, but I'd expand my desires to inlcude all candidates that qualify to be on the ballot in enough states to mathmatically (electorally) become president. The way it used to be when The League of Women Voters used to host the debates.

I agree with this.
 
Back
Top Bottom