Does anyone else think in-person live debating is a dumb and outdated form of discourse?

[Fizzzzle]

It seems so backwards. Why should we debate in a way that essentially allows anyone to spew bullshit with impunity? Sure, it gets fact checked later, but no one actually pays attention to it.

 

I propose a back-and-forth system (and this goes for any debates, not just political candidate debates) where the two candidates put out an opening statement, and then, over the course of however long, go back and forth in separate installments individually. This election, for example: Biden and Trump put out an initial statement each, then on let's say Monday Trump gets to respond, Wednesday Biden gets to respond, Friday Trump gets to respond, and so on.

 

Basically, I think live debates have a huge tendency to go off the rails. As soon as one person says something that makes you go "ok, well hold on, there's a lot to unpack there," the debate has officially lost all purpose. If candidates are given time to give measured responses that allows them to actually fact check and cite sources rather than just spouting whatever they may half-remember from their prep team, we could actually get an honest discussion. If someone could open up with a section of "here's where you were incorrect, here's where you were misleading, here's where you were outright lying, and here's proof (with sources)," it could do wonders for trust in the political system.

 

What say you? I kind of like the idea of a back-and-forth video essay style of debate. This isn't ancient Athens anymore.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I think the totality of the concept of debating is in and of itself a dumb and outdated form of discourse.

 

I really see no utility in an era where I can easily research the positions of the opposing parties on any issue.

[Jason]

[Fizzzzle]

21 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I think the totality of the concept of debating is in and of itself a dumb and outdated form of discourse.

 

I really see no utility in an era where I can easily research the positions of the opposing parties on any issue.

I still think there is value to be had in being able to directly respond to what "they say" a candidate is going to do, without relying on political ads (which a lot of people already don't trust). Being able to tell a wider audience that normally wouldn't give a shit what you have to say "here's why it's wrong, here are the sources" could still be very valuable.

 

Without some form of the debates, people would just be more in their bubble than they already are.

[thewhyteboar]

All a debate does is reward a bad-faith debater (ie, Republicans). It's not an exchange of ideas, it's a forum for Republicans to scream their lies to a broad audience. If Democrats complain, they look like scolds or that guy screaming for the mods.

 

My modest proposal is to replace all debates with a lie-detector test. Hook up the candidates to a lie-detector and place a molten iron rod to their genitals. Ask them questions about their platform and if they lie, give 'em a prod.

 

The only people who like the current debate format are the dweeby Ivy League types who always said to the teacher "Sir! Sir! You forgot to give us homework sir!"

[Fizzzzle]

1 minute ago, thewhyteboar said:

All a debate does is reward a bad-faith debater (ie, Republicans). It's not an exchange of ideas, it's a forum for Republicans to scream their lies to a broad audience. If Democrats complain, they look like scolds or that guy screaming for the mods.

 

That's why I think having a back-and-forth video essay format that everyone would see is preferable. Give the candidates limits, llet's say [x] amount of minutes for the "here's where you were incorrect, here's where you were misleading, here's where you were outright lying" section (with direct sources), then [x] amount of time to make their statement on whatever the topic is. If a network doesn't want to air a particular candidate's response, that would say a lot about the network.