• 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!

Audience in Debates Needed?

Is a Audience needed in a Debate?

  • Yes an audience is needed

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • No, an audience is not needed

    Votes: 11 57.9%
  • Unsure/Other

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19

jasonxe

I support ██ ███
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My friend at another forum brought this up

This is why I haven't watched the debates. They REALLY need to get rid of the audience. There doesn't need to be an audience at Presidential debates. Why? Because it loses the purpose. Instead of saying logical and sound things, they just try to gain a round of applause from the audience. Unfortunately, there's psychological advantages with that. As soon as an audience claps, most people automatically think what was said was a good thing. OR, people don't even hear what was initially said.

Would it be better if there wasn't an audience at these debates? See how there position comes out without a applause or boo. No "oooowww, no he didn't" meaninglessness instigation or the applaud "oh, he is probably correct" when watching on tv.

Has such a debate happen and do you think this is worth experimenting?

(an* on poll)
 
Last edited:
Yes. No audience. Unless you can remove audience applause and displays. Plants in audiences happen and they can sway the debate.
 
My friend at another forum brought this up

Would it be better if there wasn't an audience at these debates? See how there position comes out without a applause or boo. No "oooowww, no he didn't" meaninglessness instigation or the applaud "oh, he is probably correct" when watching on tv.

Has such a debate happened and do you think this is worth experimenting?

(an* on poll)

There were some televised Presidential debates in 1960 that did not have a studio audience. I think Newt Gingrich proposed such a thing in 2007. The media influence on debates is massive. Networks have their own agendas for how debates are handled, when they occur, how much audience interaction is allowed, etc. See this narrative regarding the Ford/Carter debate(s) in 1976.

It’s unfortunate that even moderators seem to typically have an agenda – probably due to the fact that they are always tied to a network. Why not ask a pure policy question to the candidates and then have the candidates debate it? Most moderators pick and choose who gets what question and the questions are typically designed to point in a particular direction - or, they begin as accusations instead of policy questions.
 
I think the partisans were hoping for a more positive reaction from the audience that would enhance their position...its been doing just the opposite and I think you will see a move to end live audiences or at least muffle their responses
 
Audiences disrupt the debate with partisan applause. It's way better to debate with no studio audience.
 
My friend at another forum brought this up



Would it be better if there wasn't an audience at these debates? See how there position comes out without a applause or boo. No "oooowww, no he didn't" meaninglessness instigation or the applaud "oh, he is probably correct" when watching on tv.

Has such a debate happen and do you think this is worth experimenting?

(an* on poll)

It would be better for people watching the debates on TV but not for the nominees doing the debating.
 
To OP, yes, I think an audience is needed or else democrats like myself will just say "source" or "bad source".
 
It's nice to have the people you're pandering to in the room with you when you do it.

Other than that, studio audiences aren't necessary. Laugh tracks can always be added in the control room anyway.
 
The audience is irrelevant as the debates are staged in the first place.

Yeah, well you are staged.

And I like the audiences, they ask stupid questions and clap/cheer at stupid times and it gives me great joy. And then I can come here and watch people bitch/defend it.
 
Last edited:
It's not needed, but people do pay for those seats. Also, it's kind of a likeability meter.
 
My friend at another forum brought this up



Would it be better if there wasn't an audience at these debates? See how there position comes out without a applause or boo. No "oooowww, no he didn't" meaninglessness instigation or the applaud "oh, he is probably correct" when watching on tv.

Has such a debate happen and do you think this is worth experimenting?

(an* on poll)

Though I don't feel an audience is necessary at the debates, your friend's analysis seems far fetched. I agree with his initial point about politicians intentionally trying to get rounds of applause, but I'd like to see some evidence to back up his claim that when people hear clapping, "most people" think what was said was a good thing. And I have never heard of clapping being used as a mechanism of deafening TV viewers.
 
I believe having an audience in debates is good. The politicians get to see the audience react, and it also tests their mettle on stage based on the audience's reaction.
 
I believe having an audience in debates is good. The politicians get to see the audience react, and it also tests their mettle on stage based on the audience's reaction.
Plus, we need to see how good each candidate is at public speaking. Any maroon can give an interview.
 
Not for the purposes of debate, but yes for the purposes of the sponsors wanting to make some cash.
 
Audience in Debates is very much needed Needed.

If you find the Audience to be annoying, a distraction or you just don't like the applause, think about this.

The Audience adds a little pressure to the Candidates and it shows who has the personal and stage presents to operate under the gun so to speak.

Anyone can can talk one on one with a Moderator but some people can't deal with a crowd and if that is the case they are in the wrong business.
 
Audience in Debates is very much needed Needed.

If you find the Audience to be annoying, a distraction or you just don't like the applause, think about this.

The Audience adds a little pressure to the Candidates and it shows who has the personal and stage presents to operate under the gun so to speak.

Anyone can can talk one on one with a Moderator but some people can't deal with a crowd and if that is the case they are in the wrong business.


That may be true...but the main reason a lot of folks are critical of the audiences in some of these GOP debates is that the candidates too often seem to spew bull**** they don't actually mean simply to garner an audience reaction.
 
That may be true...but the main reason a lot of folks are critical of the audiences in some of these GOP debates is that the candidates too often seem to spew bull**** they don't actually mean simply to garner an audience reaction.

which tells us plenty about the candidates, doesn't it?
 
That may be true...but the main reason a lot of folks are critical of the audiences in some of these GOP debates is that the candidates too often seem to spew bull**** they don't actually mean simply to garner an audience reaction.

They all do it though, so I don't know if I fault them too much for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom