• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2016 Presidential Debate II

acbytesla said:
I don't think she was.
Click to expand...
It could be considered an opinion, I suppose. There are some objective measures though, like the time she spent interrupting each candidate, and time spent debating each one, as opposed to letting them speak.

I think Hillary is perfectly capable of demolishing Trumps arguments all by herself, without help from the moderators.
 
Marcus said:
It could be considered an opinion, I suppose. There are some objective measures though, like the time she spent interrupting each candidate, and time spent debating each one, as opposed to letting them speak.

I think Hillary is perfectly capable of demolishing Trumps arguments all by herself, without help from the moderators.
Click to expand...

Please define "interrupting". It is not interrupting to say, "It's her turn, let her speak". It's not interrupting to say, "Time is up, Mr. Trump". And why the concentration on "she". The biggest actual "debate" of the night was Anderson Cooper v. Trump where Coop wouldn't let him off the hook on the sex tape comments. That's was four or five questions and parries, back and forth.

The perceptions depend on who you're rooting for, I suspect. Donald and Hillary had essentially the same amount of speaking time. Donald far exceeded her in "on camera" time because of his fidgeting and upstaging. And I thin he out-interrupted by 18-1, if I remember the scorecards correctly.

Most of the "interruptions" from the moderators were of the "it's her turn will you please give her her time" or "your time is up Mr. Trump/Secretary Clinton" variety. Telling him he didn't answer is what moderators should do.
 
I, too, thought that the moderators were too interested in scoring their own points.



I would like to see a different kind of debate. Ninety minutes long. Two candidates take the stage. No moderator. At the beginning of the debate, candidate A's microphone goes live. Three minutes later, candidate B's mic goes live, and candidate A's is turned off, all under timer control. No moderator at all, and time limits on speech enforced by computer. Just to be sure that the enforcement is complete, maybe they should be in separate rooms, so they can't yell at each other during the opponent's time.
 
Meadmaker said:
I, too, thought that the moderators were too interested in scoring their own points.



I would like to see a different kind of debate. Ninety minutes long. Two candidates take the stage. No moderator. At the beginning of the debate, candidate A's microphone goes live. Three minutes later, candidate B's mic goes live, and candidate A's is turned off, all under timer control. No moderator at all, and time limits on speech enforced by computer. Just to be sure that the enforcement is complete, maybe they should be in separate rooms, so they can't yell at each other during the opponent's time.
Click to expand...

I kind of like that idea. Would there be questions?
 
Meadmaker said:
I, too, thought that the moderators were too interested in scoring their own points.



I would like to see a different kind of debate. Ninety minutes long. Two candidates take the stage. No moderator. At the beginning of the debate, candidate A's microphone goes live. Three minutes later, candidate B's mic goes live, and candidate A's is turned off, all under timer control. No moderator at all, and time limits on speech enforced by computer. Just to be sure that the enforcement is complete, maybe they should be in separate rooms, so they can't yell at each other during the opponent's time.
Click to expand...

And after it's over and sixty million or more viewers turn off their tellies? It's Reagan time? The slickest performer and most believable actor wins?

For that format to be acceptable, I want them sitting in a wading pool holding and exposed, but dead, 220 v cable that is hooked up to a fact checker. Without moderators, the best liar wins. That's the problem with people saying the moderators should butt out. The moderators should call out blatant lies and refusals to address the questions.

It's a "news" broadcast. News connotes journalism. Journalism is supposed to be a search for the truth, isn't it?
 
Meadmaker said:
I, too, thought that the moderators were too interested in scoring their own points.



I would like to see a different kind of debate. Ninety minutes long. Two candidates take the stage. No moderator. At the beginning of the debate, candidate A's microphone goes live. Three minutes later, candidate B's mic goes live, and candidate A's is turned off, all under timer control. No moderator at all, and time limits on speech enforced by computer. Just to be sure that the enforcement is complete, maybe they should be in separate rooms, so they can't yell at each other during the opponent's time.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a moderator could introduce the candidates and ask the questions but nothing else. No calling out of candidates by the moderators and a timer could switch the microphones, love that idea.
 
acbytesla said:
It's really ***** sad that no one reads any thing longer than a celebrity's tweet.
Click to expand...

I follow a number of news sources on Twitter because it allows me to get a lot of stuff from a single website, but I'm always disappointed when I click on one of the links and I get an "article" that can be read in about 20 seconds. Now it's all about quips and videos.
 
sunmaster14 said:
False.
Click to expand...
What are you alledging is untrue in Captain Swoop's post? That the Trumpet called for the Central Park Five to be executed? Because he did so.
Or that those railroaded in that pathetic mockery of a case weren't minors?
Also untrue.
Yusef Salaam and Antron McCray were 15; Raymond Santana and Kevin Richardson were 14 and Korey Wise was 16.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There are a few things. There is a report that another youth upon arrest, before police knew a rape occurred, and without prompting, said he knew who committed the rape and named one of the five.
Click to expand...
Got some evidence for those claims?
 
Marcus said:
It could be considered an opinion, I suppose. There are some objective measures though, like the time she spent interrupting each candidate, and time spent debating each one, as opposed to letting them speak.
Click to expand...

Yes, that might be a measure, if we had confidence that each candidate strayed from questions equally often.

But we haven't that confidence, so you'd have to show that this is roughly the case before we agree that your measures are objective. Until then, I might as well complain that cops don't like me, since they pull me over more often than they do my wife. Yes, that might be a concern, or it might be that I drive faster.

I think Hillary is perfectly capable of demolishing Trumps arguments all by herself, without help from the moderators.
Click to expand...

The moderators should be able to say that the candidate failed to answer the question. Hell, they should also be able to say that his answer involved clearly false claims. Why not?
 
Meadmaker said:
I, too, thought that the moderators were too interested in scoring their own points.



I would like to see a different kind of debate. Ninety minutes long. Two candidates take the stage. No moderator. At the beginning of the debate, candidate A's microphone goes live. Three minutes later, candidate B's mic goes live, and candidate A's is turned off, all under timer control. No moderator at all, and time limits on speech enforced by computer. Just to be sure that the enforcement is complete, maybe they should be in separate rooms, so they can't yell at each other during the opponent's time.
Click to expand...

Wow. I am completely uninterested in this suggestion. Sounds like an opportunity for gamesmanship, not argument.
 
Regardless of moderators and even in an unmoderated setting, the main problem I have with timed debates is that the time distribution favors the weaker argument. After the first speaker has said something, the time the opponent has to respond to it is the same or less, but properly responding to a bad starting point could easily require more time than the bad starting point took. So the time limits force the side with the better argument to leave some of the opponent's bad claims to go unchallenged.
 
phiwum said:
Yes, that might be a measure, if we had confidence that each candidate strayed from questions equally often.

But we haven't that confidence, so you'd have to show that this is roughly the case before we agree that your measures are objective. Until then, I might as well complain that cops don't like me, since they pull me over more often than they do my wife. Yes, that might be a concern, or it might be that I drive faster.



The moderators should be able to say that the candidate failed to answer the question. Hell, they should also be able to say that his answer involved clearly false claims. Why not?
Click to expand...
I see a problem with letting moderators argue with a candidate. Yes, Trump told more lies and probably dodged more questions than Hillary (not sure) but she also uses both of those tactics. If the moderators get to decide which responses to dispute, an aspect of subjectivity is introduced.

Calling out of a candidate should be done by the other candidate. Yes, each should get equal time, I believe it was close enough on this debate, but I would rather the candidates know they are actually restricted to the stated time (by the mic cutting off) , they will tailor their answers to fit. Also a candidate couldn't interrupt if their mike were cut off
 
Delvo said:
Regardless of moderators and even in an unmoderated setting, the main problem I have with timed debates is that the time distribution favors the weaker argument. After the first speaker has said something, the time the opponent has to respond to it is the same or less, but properly responding to a bad starting point could easily require more time than the bad starting point took. So the time limits force the side with the better argument to leave some of the opponent's bad claims to go unchallenged.
Click to expand...
It works both ways though, as long as each has an equal number of questions and answers. And of course both candidates spend a lot of their time talking about things unrelated to the original question anyway.
 
I think it is well within the purview of the moderators to point out that the participants are not answering the question being asked. After all, that is why the candidates are there, to answer those questions.

Fact checking? Not so much. There'll be plenty of that after the debate is over, or these days ... while it is going on, on Twitter, Facebook, network web site, etc.

I really like the mike shutoff idea. Not even so much for keeping down interruptions and overrunning their time as because I believe it would encourage them to reply with more carefully considered, on-point replies.

I think knowing that they can't just ramble on while being told to shut up by the mods will keep them focused.
 
Delvo said:
Probably because you in some way recall a rare bit of Star Trek Trivia: two of the Klingons in that scene were actually named Skittles and Tic-Tac! The rest were Skootleyboop, Glitterstar, Moonsparkle, Plum Blossom, Cherry Cake, Dewshine, Dazzle Rain, Sugarfrost, Sapphire Twilight, Qe'eltjoth, and Khurotwghok.
Click to expand...

Has TragicMonkey hacked your account?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom