Will the Republican 2024 presidential candidates debate in good faith at their primary?

[Shermann]

A "good faith" political debate is one you might have with friends while enjoying cigars and scotch. It is characterized by alternating between addressing previous statements and genuinely listening to the next. Good faith debaters will employ the conversational technique of paraphrasing to confirm understanding. These debaters will even concede a position when definitively outmaneuvered.

This is in stark contrast to what we get at political debates pitting Democrats against Republicans. These tend to be unwinnable shitshows with Republicans largely engaging in the opposite strategy: talking points, straw man arguments designed to smear, brazen assertions of righteousness, pettifogging, etc. This has become the norm and will continue in 2024.

That said, Trump debated in this way in the 2016 primary. Why don't Republican voters demand more? This style of debating is lazy and ultimately uninformative (and arguably disrespectful) to the viewers. How is a party to best choose their candidate this way?

Can we expect the same in 2024? Is Trump even capable of more? Doesn't the job function require this skill?

[Brainfodder]

1. You thinking HUNTER drinking game?

[Sneederbunk]

2. Do Repugs do anything in good faith?

[Aristus]

3. Shit. Even their 'faith' isn't good faith.

"Jesus says to get rich, hate everyone who isn't like you, and then go to Heaven."

Even the blisteringly tawdry Bible, with its incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, greed, drunkenness, gluttony, misogyny, misanthropy, etc, etc doesn't say that.

[Shermann]

4. Good point!

[keep_left]

5. No. See Betteridge's Law, though it may not really apply...

...on a political site.

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

[Shermann]

7. Yeah a lot of those headlines are just clickbait

It's more accurate in some cases to say that any article with a headline that poses a question won't actually answer that question.

In my case, I feel the answer may have been yes in the debates of yesteryear. But in the Trump era, not so much. He drags the whole thing into the muck.

If Trump were a more skilled debater, maybe we would have gotten that free border wall. You have to win a tough debate with an ally to pull that one off.

[Johonny]

6. I assume the only way to win is to attack Trump

Whose record is laughable. Yet probably they will gang up on Christie who will attack Trump but get little time.

Once again, attacking the front runner whose record sucks seems like a good strategy in reality based land. In fantasy GOP land, these candidates are all a joke.

[Xavier Breath]

8. With apologies to all monkeys, I fully expect them

to spend the evening fling their poo at one another. Gotta go with your strength.

[LuvLoogie]

9. Will I fucking care?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. Republicans and good faith in the same sentence?

[GenThePerservering]

11. "cigars and scotch"?

Wut?

The GOP debates are going to be the usual 4th grade level. I expect nothing more.

[former9thward]

12. Can you name one debate in either party that was a serious debate?

Since the modern TV debate format began in 1960 so-called debates have just been dueling press conference soundbites.

A real debate was the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. Each candidate started out speaking for a hour each and then started asking direct questions of the other candidate and they spoke in 1/2 hour segments. It went on for hours. Is either party up to that?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Are you kidding?

[Silent3]

14. Sadly, even Democrats don't debate Democrats in good faith very often

Our culture doesn't value good debates. Our "debates" in both parties are far too much about talking points, "gotcha" moments, slip-ups, etc.