Can anyone explain why we don't have real 'college style' debates?

[Joe Fields]

...instead of this circus that passes for a series of debates? I don't believe anyone can explain it to me. Why are the candidates so afraid of confronting each other in a public forum, if they honest to god feel as though they are qualified to be the leader of the free world? I'm sick of position papers and cute little sound bites. Let's have a series of debates, with each debate pertaining to a specific issue, and then debate, using the college style format. THEN we just might be able to determine who has a grasp of the problems, as well as providing serious solutions to those problems. And THEN we might be better able to unite as a party.

[HeraldSquare212]

1. I'm with you

and I think that's something all of us,no matter who we support, can agree on. Can we start a DU petition or something demanding it and try to force them to do it?

[Mythsaje]

2. Good idea...n/t

[H2O Man]

3. I think

you just explained it. We have commercials, not debates. There haven't been real debates in a long time.

[Joe Fields]

9. Pablum for the dull witted, or for those too lazy to think for themselves.

[BOSSHOG]

4. The only logical explanation I can conjure up

is that there are more then two candidates. However, if there were only two they would not want to be constrained to the fairness associated with High School and College Debate but it would be so much more helpful for the electorate.

Resolved: That Gays be allowed to serve openly in the military and allowed to wed.

Resolved: That American Troops begin returning home from Iraq 1 October 2008 and the return will continue until they are all home.

And on and on and on. What a valuable tool. No wonder candidates don't want anything to do with it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. well, my theory is

that in a primary debate, the differences between the candidates are mostly subtle. Unless it's like, Joe Lieberman debating Dennis Kucinich.

Most of the Democratic field agree with eachother on 90% of the issues. But put them on a stage with Republicans and you'd see a more clearly defined debate.

Personally, I think they should have the top three candidates from each party debate eachother at one forum.

I'd love to see Hillary, Obama and Edwards against Rudy, Romney and McCain in a town-hall style forum.

[sazemisery]

6. I ask this question all the time! k&r n/t

[blondeatlast]

7. Hear, hear! K&R. nt

[porphyrian]

8. Sound bites.

Anything more, and they lose too many audience members, thus lowering the effective price of commercial time during the debates. The media gives not one shit about the debates unless they are making money.

[SoCalDem]

10. Issue discussion requires thought and time

soundbytes & personal attacks are zippier :silly:

[Joe Fields]

11. Hey, those geezers stole my slogan...LOL

:hi:

[HeraldSquare212]

12. If we could force the Dems to do it in the primaries

the Rep nominee would have a hard time turning it down in the GE, and I think any of our candidates would wipe the floor with theirs in a real debate.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Because it's the candidates who decide the format...

and pretty much always has been.

They like it this way with them each having to come up with a soundbite every few minutes instead of actually having to explain and defend a position.

That's why I usually don't bother to waste my time watching these boring bullshit throwing contests, and major media often doesn't even bother covering them.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Because we aren't the leader of the Free World anymore.

  We were the leader (if only in a symbolic sense) of the Free World.

  Then we were attacked by (terrorists) and our batshit crazy President decided to bully every other goddamned country into going to war against a country which clearly didn't launch the attack against us.

  Meanwhile, those countries which didn't go along with our military plans were vilified, ridiculed and berated both from the Administration and in the popular media.

  Now we're ramping up another war against another country who didn't attack us and we're going to use the same bullshit again, pretending it's some new idea.

  So, the style of debate you see is not competition for the Leader of the Free World- it's a competition for being the leader of a failing Imperial pseudo-Democracy with a national debt so large it is likely to push the field of mathematics much farther than quantum cryptography, teleportation and time travel would just to keep track of the interest.

  There is nothing collegiate about the debates because there is nothing collegiate about the thinking behind our country anymore.

[PATRICK]

15. Victims of catch-22

The "wise" or fearful advisers and candidates themselves wanted to control everything, especially the medium itself. They eventually kicked out the sane non-partisan third parties like the LWV and rubbed their hands with glee. Jockeying with their rivals over format and rules taught them nothing as they strangled all the potential of debates to deal with fear and possible gaming of formats.

Then we have the same wise compromise for the large field of candidates, so bad that no one gets a shot and the ones who get advantages do so at the unfair expense of the others, dragging process and all the candidates down one way or another. Performers in control of the rules floundering this badly have ruined the whole thing.

So back full circle to a truly non-partisan actual debate. But no, they keep substituting a combination of corrupt media and media controlled venues with a smorgasbord of various moderators ranging from good to terrible and terribly biased. Move center field in for more homers. Make the bats and balls of flubber. Pump in the steroids. Play the music louder. Pay higher salaries.

Demonstration of how to make things not work has an immediate debilitating effect on the electorate looking for quality and the candidates can only plead that the system of candidate control of debates has forced them all to look bad. Or pretend. Or seethe publicly.

But we still don't see actual debating. It must be like a lawyer not letting his client take the stand in his own defense.

[Joe Fields]

16. It's exactly like lawyers not letting their client take the stand.

Which to me speaks volumes about the quality of the candidates themselves. If they expect to take over the reigns of power, then they should expect to have to prove they deserve to...(unless of course they can get away with not having to prove anything)

[PATRICK]

22. In defense of the candidates

ALL of them are suffering in this trap and not too many are responsible for the process as it has taken on a life of its own. Even the total control GOP looks bad although this might be intentional to keep any REAL competition to the Bush dynasty, humiliated and controlled themselves. Those with brains and eagerness to cooperate with the broad panel discussions- i.e, the Dems and those with only sloganeering competitions and barnyard imitation contests- the GOP, both seem handicapped. the last memorable break in this frustration was Reagan grabbing the microphone which was kind of pathetic actually. No one has come up with a way to duplicate that effective, non issue absurdity since although the media would be prepared to make it work for the GOP.

Unfortunately revenge has come for the LWV under whose guidance the parties chafed and then set up a true monstrosity now institutionalized and usually improved by simply adding more, expecting brilliant results. They can't because the sick core of manipulation, more nebulous than any single adviser or party, doesn't WANT a debate but a show drama and PR presentation to appear as a smooth vetting to the eventual contest winner, free of divisiveness, clarity or real debate damage. I don't even think the candidates- or rather their advisers, get to sit down together to reformulate anything more than seating arrangement and lighting. The biggest surprise is watching the GOP wallow helplessly and more painfully in the briar patch right along with the Dems.

[Joe Fields]

23. Why defend the candidates? They are part of the problem.

[PATRICK]

29. They signed on to it

And no even imagines despite the Internet providing us some kind of virtual street alternative- vociferously opting out of the media distributed farce. Something similar might be true in other countries where they would drop out of the ballot in protest rather than give up air time. The futility sometimes is the only option. If the other candidates revolted and staged their own (non-MSM)debate the main effect would be temporary slap in the face and the trees failling in smaller forests. There have been people debating against empty microphones. When things get that bad you might as well, but the herd debates grimly soldier on so far.

I hope this is the last year for this mediocre show and the corporate PR horse it rode in on.

[AnnInLa]

17. Some people think that

if a candidate is not a good debater, then he/she starts with a handicap...and continues with one, I suppose, even tho he/she may be a really terrific candidate. Kinda like being an excellent learner in school, but not being a good test-taker.

But, all in all, I would love to see the kind of debates that you are advocating for....it would do so much for the country and the electorate. The Dem Party should at least cut WAY down on the number of "debates" that are scheduled. "Familiarity breeds contempt" is a very true expression. When their mugs are all over the tv, saying the same thing, over and over, then the purpose of the debates is lost. People's eyes glaze over and they tune out.

[baldguy]

18. Presidential debates are political advertisements,

For the sponsors & broadcasters, the goal is to have all the candidates up on stage - especially the front runners. For the candidates, its an opportunity to get free face time on camera.

But if there wasn't a guarantee that the candidate could present his or her positions only in a positive light, the candidate wouldn't participate.

A real "college style" debate would require the candidate to be able to understand, present & defend their positions is a logical manner. There's too much chance that they'd show themselves to be a fool.

[bemildred]

19. Because most of the candidates would get their clocks cleaned in short order

on television in a real debate with real questions. There is far too much money at stake to allow that sort of thing.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

28. Ding, ding, ding... We have a winnah..

That one has the ring of truth.

[Fovea]

20. Today, I got an email from a dem strategist

asking if I could come up with the next killer sound-bite.

I think that the power elites of both parties have ceased to believe that American voters
have sufficient attention span to follow a reasoned argument, and need a slogan that can be yelled
in a :30 soundbite, or across a barracade.

I fear that it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Joe Fields]

21. you are justified in your fear.

I don't know if it is possible to turn back the clock.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Because then they'd have to answer real 'college style' questions?

[spanone]

25. america just loves the reality 'gotcha' bullshit that passes for debate

[supernova]

26. Wondered that for a long time

I think we should get back to classical debate style, if we have any hope of discussing issues in a meaningful way.

[annabanana]

27. Big ol' k&r from me. . . . .n/t