NationStates Jolt Archive


The Worthlessness of Presidential Debates

Hajekistan
02-10-2004, 08:41
I've been mulling over this for awhile (read: five or ten minutes while waiting on a traffic light) after I watched the debates a couple nights ago (read: accidentally watched about fifteen minutes in between channel surfing). Anyway, Presidential Debates are inherently worthless. I could stop typing now, but I love the sound of my own voice and will go on:

Firstly, they aren't even debates. A debate is an over regimented argument, with opening and closing statements, a defensive side, a non-defensive side, rebuttals, the introduction of new evidence, etc. At best, then, Presidential Debates are closest to "Mini Speeches", or, if you want to appeal to the younger set "PH47 DU3LLIING SP33CH3S!!!!!!1!!!!11!1!shift+1!!!1!!"

Secondly, nothing new is ever introduced. With rare exception (Dukkakis, anyone?) candidates stick to the same talking points they've been trying to grind into your skull for weeks already.

Thirdly, no one ever "wins." This is primarily due to a lack of direct competition, they can't talk to each other, after all. Additionally, no one was ever "made" by a debate; though people have lost do to something entirely weird bringing them down a bit (Gore was obnoxious as hell on his first debate against Bush).

Fourthly, debates waste otherwise productive time with two rich white guys yammering at each other, each one competing to see who can better appeal to "the people." I don't know who these "people" are, but I'd have to say they are pretty odd to find anything particularly appealing between an exhausted Texan who can't keep himself straight and an orange wad of arrogance.

Anyway, most people don't even watch, I understand the debate garnered under 65 million viewers in America. Less than 65 million out of over 290 million. That is less than 1 out of every 4.

Now, I have two proposals to fix this problem.
Either we swap out the old moderators for Jerry Springer and let the candidates scream at each other whilst swinging their podiums at each others head until one of them admits to having an affair with the others lesbian wife and producing a child who snorts cocaine.
Or, we could just actually make it a debate, allowing one to ask the other questions and cut the moderator's out almost entirely.
BackwoodsSquatches
02-10-2004, 08:43
Debates are for the undecided voters.
Its an opportunity to hear the candidates speak about issues when directly asked.

Its all about the fence sitters.
Japaica
03-10-2004, 03:37
Debates are for the undecided voters.
Its an opportunity to hear the candidates speak about issues when directly asked.

Its all about the fence sitters.

Well said.
Hajekistan
03-10-2004, 05:21
Debates are for the undecided voters.
Its an opportunity to hear the candidates speak about issues when directly asked.

Its all about the fence sitters.
Feh, stiff.
"Fence sitters" tend to belong to two groups:
People who are really political, but are pretending to be moderate in hopes of getting the leg up in an argument, OR
People who really don't care that much at this point and spent the debates watching porn.
Lets make it interesting, that'll get people's attention. Perhaps Zell Miller had the right idea, Bush and Kerry, pistols at five paces.