Debates

[Salty]

This is how I would like to see a debate. Say there are 3 candidates - debate is 90 minuets long
Each candidate gets a 3 min opening and 2 minute closing (total 5 minutes/candidate x 3 = 15 minutes)

There is now 75 minutes remaining.
The moderator will have 12-20 questions to ask.
Each candidate will be limited to a grand total of 21 minutes to speak
Each candidate will have as much time to answer a question or to give a rebuttal

the purpose of this is to:
1. allow the candidate sufficient time to spend on questions he thinks are more important
(remember with Clinton - "do you wear boxers or briefs)
2. to see how well a candidate is able to budget his time

Thoughts?

 

[poncho]

Sounds okay to me Salty.

Can we throw in a few questions that actually pertain to the real problems we face as a nation today?

Here's one, the "Arab Spring" protests and civil unrest in the mid east have been shown to be the product of funding, training and long term manipulation in large part the U.S. State Dept. why then do you sir or madam still hold to the claim that these were just "spontaneous" uprisings by people yerning for democracy?

Please explain.

 

[Salty]

Can we throw in a few questions that actually pertain to the real problems we face as a nation today?

In this thread the questions asked are immaterial - I want to see debates organized in a way that are effective.
Therefore, I do not need to explain an answer!

Any other thoughts as to how some debates could be set up?

 

[Skandelon]

This is how I would like to see a debate. Say there are 3 candidates - debate is 90 minuets long
Each candidate gets a 3 min opening and 2 minute closing (total 5 minutes/candidate x 3 = 15 minutes)

There is now 75 minutes remaining.
The moderator will have 12-20 questions to ask.
Each candidate will be limited to a grand total of 21 minutes to speak
Each candidate will have as much time to answer a question or to give a rebuttal

the purpose of this is to:
1. allow the candidate sufficient time to spend on questions he thinks are more important
(remember with Clinton - "do you wear boxers or briefs)
2. to see how well a candidate is able to budget his time

Thoughts?

What if a canidate used all his time on the first question or two? Would he just not be able (or have to) answer the rest? Shouldn't there be some time limit on any given answer for that reason?

 

[Salty]

What if a canidate used all his time on the first question or two? Would he just not be able (or have to) answer the rest? Shouldn't there be some time limit on any given answer for that reason?

That is correct, he would have used up all of his time.
The purpose is to see how he budgets his time.

I think that would be a good indicator of what kind of office holder he would be

 

[Skandelon]

The problem to me would be that he could use up all his time on "soft ball" questions and not have to answer the difficult questions later in the debate. I want them to have to answer the hard questions.

 

[Arbo]

...And teleprompters are verboten.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salty]

...he could use up all his time on "soft ball" questions ... I want them to have to answer the hard questions.

IMHO, a "softball" question should only take about 20 seconds to answer

 

[exscentric]

Two points:

1. He used big screens the last time I saw him
2. Format would never work, you left out golf time.

 

[Skandelon]

IMHO, a "softball" question should only take about 20 seconds to answer

Oh, I agree, but a politician can stretch the answer and twist it in order to go on talking about any hot button issue he wants. I like your idea, I just think they should have to reserve some time for other questions so that no one is excused from answering something that may need an answer.

 

[righteousdude2]

What Debates Means to Me!

It is like the poor fish that was just out swimming in the pond one sunny day. The last thing he remembered about that beautiful day was the wiggly worm at the end of the hook (which he never saw), and before he knew it he had taken "de bate!" and was reeled in. :laugh:

Debates are the hidden hooks that we use (on the forums) to lure and catch unsuspecting prey, and when they bite, and they are hooked, they are reeled in, only to be taken apart by our superior intellect on the subject matter we used as "de bate" to grab their attention and get them to argue with us. :thumbs:

 

[HankD]

In this thread the questions asked are immaterial - I want to see debates organized in a way that are effective.
Therefore, I do not need to explain an answer!

Any other thoughts as to how some debates could be set up?

Yes, each candidate would be required to be hooked up to a lie detector.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, each candidate would be required to be hooked up to a lie detector.

HankD

LOL....that would be fun to watch.

......but I believe sociopaths could fool the lie detector....

 

[HankD]

LOL....that would be fun to watch.

......but I believe sociopaths could fool the lie detector....

They should also have to submit a certified score sheet :

Past Promises Made vs. Past Promises Kept

HankD

 

[Borneol]

Was thinking this is a debate I would enjoy watching. What ever the details are, they would be fine with me.

"REP. RYAN CHALLENGES OBAMA TO DEBT DEBATE: THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET VIA TWITTER"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep...-debate-throws-down-the-gauntlet-via-twitter/