2012 Debates

RandFan said:
A.) I don't see that. B.) I don't know how one objectively determines who won. But fine, I'm happy to go with argument ad populum. It's only a skeptics forum.
Click to expand...

I would say the person who presented his case most clearly and logically and disarmed the other's arguments best. For example, Romney attacked Obama's 4-year record, and Obama did not defend it at all. Instead Obama attacked Romney's plan, and Romney successfully characterized Obama's argument as a straw-man. Even if Obama has the better plan for the economy, it did not show through, and within the context of the debate, Romney made the better arguments.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I don't see a whole lot of comments in your list that claim that Obama won the debate.
Click to expand...

Redtail said:
^This.
Click to expand...

It's strongly implied, look at the context. You can click through to the original comment.

ETA: some of those comments are responses to Wangler being surprised by Obama's poor debating. I also included Wangler's comments (though I should have indented them).
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Please to point out those that claim Obama won?

How does "???" = "Obama won"?
Click to expand...

I interpreted your "???" as expressing surprise at the earlier comment that Obama was struggling. It certainly looked like feigning ignorance, especially with the surrounding responses. My apologies if that is not what you meant.
 
Richard Masters said:
I would say the person who presented his case most clearly and logically and disarmed the other's arguments best.
Click to expand...
And you can demonstrate this empirically by? How do you control for confirmation bias?

For example, Romney attacked Obama's 4-year record, and Obama did not defend it at all. Instead Obama attacked Romney's plan, and Romney successfully characterized Obama's argument as a straw-man. Even if Obama has the better plan for the economy, it did not show through, and within the context of the debate, Romney made the better arguments.
Click to expand...
Confirmation bias? Let's be clear here, I'm not here to argue Obama won. I honestly don't know. A lot of talking heads say Obama lost. Fine. I'm fine with that. But when you come to a skeptics forum claiming an objective truth without any objective evidence and spouting ad hoc rationalization and cherry picking a single data point I gotta say, nonsense. Don't overplay your hand. You got your good election cycle, enjoy it. Making it into something it's not is a sign of desperation.
 
Richard Masters said:
I interpreted your "???" as expressing surprise at the earlier comment that Obama was struggling. It certainly looked like feigning ignorance, especially with the surrounding responses. My apologies if that is not what you meant.
Click to expand...
I don't know that he was struggling and I thought the claim overstated. One more time, it's not an objective fact that Obama struggled. I'm happy to agree that the consensus of the talking heads think Obama lost. That's fine. But when people start spouting subjective views as if they are objectively true and we aren't supposed to register skepticism then we have a problem.
 
Richard Masters said:
The comments below and a few more.
Click to expand...
As I said before, there are a few, although not many of those you linked really rise to "Obama won" status.

But I would say that you appear to be cherry-picking. The vast majority of comments by Democrats/Liberals here seem to be saying that they agree Obama did poorly.

I'm betting that if I did a little cherry-picking I could come up with a list of posts by conservatives that say, essentially, "Ha ha ha! you suck". You think?
 
RandFan said:
No. No it's not.
A.) Thinking Obama's skills were not abysmal ISN'T the same as "Obama won".
Click to expand...

Of course not. But I included comments that fit the pattern of denial.

B.) Whether or not Obama won ISN'T an empirical fact.
Click to expand...

But you could measure it with some scoring mechanism or characterize the result with a set of standards, such as who made the better arguments.
 
Richard Masters said:
But I included comments that fit the pattern of denial.
Click to expand...
A.) That's moving the goal posts. B.) It's possible to have a disagreement with statements and sentiments. That doesn't equate to claiming Obama won.

But you could measure it with some scoring mechanism or characterize the result with a set of standards, such as who made the better arguments.
Click to expand...
The standards would be subjective. We might agree but until you A.) Establish the standards via consensus ahead of time and B.) Score them with a double blind test you don't have any objective data.

The one thing that does impress me are the Democrats that think Obama lost. It's not an objective truth but it somewhat compelling.
 
Last edited:
Richard Masters said:
It's strongly implied, look at the context. You can click through to the original comment.
Click to expand...

No.

Originally Posted by shemp
What debate are you watching?
Click to expand...
In response to a claim that Romney was doing so well that he'd gain the lead in the polls.


Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer
Are you being sarcastic?

I think he explained it well.
Click to expand...
The struggling seems to be from Obama's stammering, not from the content.



Originally Posted by shemp
Again, what debate are you watching?
Click to expand...
In response to a claim that Lehrer was interrupting Romney every 10 seconds & was trying to take over the debate for Obama.

Originally Posted by SkepticalDrew
The one through the tinted glasses. :wink:
Click to expand...
Same as above.

Originally Posted by RandFan
???
Click to expand...
The struggling seems to be from Obama's stammering, not from the content.



The rest I'll give you* except for...

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus
He's an idiot.

Between that and the Romney Smirk, I think he just blew it. Well, allow me to clarify: by "blew it", I mean that he blew his chance at scoring any kind of knockout against President Obama. If Obama came across as stuttering, etc in the debate, Romney could have really made some headway, but he had to have the damn Smirk on his face the whole time. Which basically screams "I'm an arrogant jerk".

Moron.
Click to expand...
He's even clarified that he was talking about a KO, not a win.



*Here I'm going to point out that all but one came from the same poster & MM wasn't talking to himself for 10 pages.

That's hardly "Pretty much any comment posted in this thread during and immediately after the debate."
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Confirmation bias? Let's be clear here, I'm not here to argue Obama won. I honestly don't know. A lot of talking heads say Obama lost. Fine. I'm fine with that. But when you come to a skeptics forum claiming an objective truth without any objective evidence and spouting ad hoc rationalization and cherry picking a single data point I gotta say, nonsense. Don't overplay your hand. You got your good election cycle, enjoy it. Making it into something it's not is a sign of desperation.
Click to expand...

I would have to say Romney won... and I never watched the debate. They were even saying it on Canadian talk radio all afternoon. When enough people say he won...from enough different sources..... then I think that's safe to say that he won.

Now, to me... that doesn't mean anything. I've seen 9/11 truthers easily win lots of debates against unprepared (in the art of woo) radio hosts. What does that mean? Debates are more about tactics then truth.... at least that's how it appears to me.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Even Letterman thought Obama did poorly. He compared him to an NFL replacement ref, and his Top Ten was President Obama Excuses.
Click to expand...

Wow... and Letterman would sniff Obama's seat cushion after the show.... That's saying something.
 
Richard Masters said:
But you could measure it with some scoring mechanism or characterize the result with a set of standards, such as who made the better arguments.
Click to expand...

Neither one of them made arguments. It was just back and forth assertions about whose plan did what.
 
RandFan said:
And you can demonstrate this empirically by? How do you control for confirmation bias?
Click to expand...

I mentioned this in my last comment. Also, my criticism is specifically about the confirmation bias I saw in this thread.

Confirmation bias? Let's be clear here, I'm not here to argue Obama won. I honestly don't know. A lot of talking heads say Obama lost. Fine. I'm fine with that. But when you come to a skeptics forum claiming an objective truth without any objective evidence and spouting ad hoc rationalization and cherry picking a single data point I gotta say, nonsense.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm cherry picking. There were plenty of left-leaning individuals on this thread who expressed surprise or disappointment especially this morning. My examples naturally did not include those.

Don't overplay your hand. You got your good election cycle, enjoy it. Making it into something it's not is a sign of desperation.
Click to expand...

Good election cycle? I'm not really a fan of Republicans or conservatives. In fact I tend to side with progressive ideas. I'm equally frustrated by both sides when I see double-standards and confirmation bias, especially in a skeptic discussion forum by self-proclaimed skeptics.
 
Richard Masters said:
I would say the person who presented his case most clearly and logically and disarmed the other's arguments best. For example, Romney attacked Obama's 4-year record, and Obama did not defend it at all. Instead Obama attacked Romney's plan, and Romney successfully characterized Obama's argument as a straw-man. Even if Obama has the better plan for the economy, it did not show through, and within the context of the debate, Romney made the better arguments.
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose he did do that. Romney instead pointed out that his "plan" was an invisible man, that is to say it has never been seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom