Presidential Debate 9/26/08

[Zosi]

If we took the english system, we would likely have our political debates end in a true brawl.

We'd end up with The Governator for president whether it's legal or not, nobody else would be left standing.

[Maxxthepenguin]

After the debate, one guy on fox said something of the likes that Obama calling Mccain John instead of Senator Mccain was noticed by everyone and was disrespectful.
The guy next to him said "I didn't notice that at all"

Obama called McCain John
McCain wouldn't look at his opponent

It's a draw for "stupid shit people will blow up but doesn't matter that much"

[aurik]

McCain almost totally lost his temper...you could tell he was very agitated at times.

[Tristam]

You can go back decades and the same principle strategies are employed. It isn't even with just presidential debates. Open house debates, high school debates, hell, debate classes and books harp on many of these issues. It's not even really the pandering, it's the way the pandering is presented. Debates are almost exclusively about presentation and adaption. Did you notice how McCain pressed the moderator and tried to get away with as much as possible as far as interrupting. McCain acted like he wanted to talk for an hour strait. He probably did. I don't think it's so much an education issue as much as it is taking advantage of a societal weakness. When someone is put on a stage, whether it's in sports, politics, entertainment, whatever, we love people who can get in front of a camera and look fantastic doing what they are doing and saying what they are saying. A lot of times it's transparent, but that almost gets pushed back to the backburner.

The fact that you have a "6+" years or whatever of college political studies or whatever, and this is the sort of shit you're talking about, is a piss poor reflection of american politics at the national level. I will say at other levels debating is an entirely differnet beast that focuses much more on the argument than on the fucking presentation. But whatever.

[Beckwin]

yeah gonna have to disagree about all debates at all levels being primarily about presentation and emotional appeal... I mean hell, not long ago someone here posted a video of a college debate championship and it was scraggly looking kids speedtalking to get in as much content in the time limit as they could.

[Viserdes]

i like reading peoples thoughts on this debate, i found a pretty good site with a fair amount of comments that for the most part, are logical. heres a link if your also like me and like to read these stuff. well, i dont know to make it link, but just copy and paste it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092503022.html

[Kwijiboe]

I'm hearing draw, or McCain. However, a draw for Obama is being considered a win for him-- as this is McCain's area of expertise.

[Elvis]

cmon factcheck.org! updaaate

[Tristam]

cmon factcheck.org! updaaate

no shit! It's killing me!

[Maxxthepenguin]

Factcheck is well researched, well sourced, and well balanced (despite being specifically abused by the McCain campaign.) That takes time.

I expect a smaller, more basic article up soon though

[Tyche]

The fact that you have a "6+" years or whatever of college political studies or whatever, and this is the sort of shit you're talking about, is a piss poor reflection of american politics at the national level. I will say at other levels debating is an entirely differnet beast that focuses much more on the argument than on the fucking presentation. But whatever.

Like I said earlier, I think it's more of a piss poor reflection on society than the presidential candidates and politics. I think everyone here would agree that policy wise, obama slam dunked the debate, but the polls are much closer than that. Not really a political issue as much as a society issue.

To answer both your's and beckwins comments about debates at various levels, I think you took it incorrectly. At other levels, you stillmust maintain strong diction and articulation. The debate Beckwin mentioned was probably an evidence gathering format. Being persuasive isn't important in those areas, so you must dump as much knowledge into as possible. Parliamentary debates usually focus around what I talked about ealier. They're essentially a variety of small speeches. You can't simply say "scragly kids spoke really fast", there's more context than that.

[Beckwin]

I'm hearing draw, or McCain. However, a draw for Obama is being considered a win for him-- as this is McCain's area of expertise.

most early polling is favoring Obama, generally slightly. of course we won't get a better picture until tomorrow or so.

[Beckwin]

but tyche, it's possible to be persuasive relying primarily on facts and logic rather than lopsidedly on emotional appeals and personality/presentation. that's the issue here: it's become too lopsided in favor of non-substantial argument. and I'm not saying you're incorrect by asserting that the emotional/personality/presentation aspect does have a huge impact in modern political debate; I'm saying it shouldn't so much and that there are kinds of debates that avoid it more.

[Tyche]

I don't disagree with that in the least bit, I was simply getting across that that's the way it is and has been for a while. I was more trying to pull the blame off of the political side and push it more on the consumer side, as I think that's where the blame should lie. It just seems everyone is blaming the politicians...I think you should be blaming the way american's look at their politicians, especially in this type of format. I'm sure you've read some of the absurd comments made by people from articles and other forums. Do they have to do with strict policy rebuttals? Probably not most of them.

Also, is this your video beckwin?
http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/...bate-2002.html

If so, this is a CEDA debate. I've never participated in one, but the ultimate goal is to regurgitate vasts amount of evidence as fast as you possibly can. That's the goal of that style of format. L-D debates and parliamentary debates are nothing like this.

[quannum]

for now i'd just like to say that jim lehrer did an awesome job moderating and asking appropriate questions.

[Zoot]

honestly, i'd have to say that completely objectively, I think McCain won the debate by argumentative reasoning. That makes me a little sad. I think perhaps Obama was a little too overconfident that he had intimidated his opponent.

It's a bad thing to assume but...I still don't agree with what McCain's decisions are, as eloquently as they were described and as well as he handled the debate. It didn't change my decision.

[geno]

honestly, i'd have to say that completely objectively, I think McCain won the debate by argumentative reasoning. That makes me a little sad. I think perhaps Obama was a little too overconfident that he had intimidated his opponent.

It's a bad thing to assume but...I still don't agree with what McCain's decisions are, as eloquently as they were described and as well as he handled the debate. It didn't change my decision.

While I don't really agree, even taking the position that he won its not like he ran away with it, which is what he needed to do. There were two reasons McCain needed to win this debate strongly:
1. Its supposed to be his best topic (based entirely on polling numbers for who would be a better commander-in-chief).
2. He's behind in national polls. The going theory is that in the case of a tie or narrow win, the real winner is always the one ahead in the polls because all they really need to do is maintain that advantage. The other guy is the one that needs to run away with it so that they can rally in the national polls.

[GRT]

other than McCain's condescending manner, the debate felt like a draw to me

although, if you think about it, it's kinda impressive that Obama didn't lose much ground against McCain on the subject of national security

[Demosthenes11]

I think it's pretty piss poor some of you are surprised the likely next president didn't get dominated in a debate on national security. If he becomes the next president he better damn well know his shit and have his shit together when it comes national security.

I like Obama more in the debate purely because McCain was throwing up straw men like there was a crow infestation in the auditorium. They both took a few good jabs at the opponent. McCain pointing out Obama had never been to afghanistan/ talked with the troops there while he was chairmen of that subcommittee was a pretty good shot, as well as Obama belittling the 18 bil earmarks with the loophole figure.

I thought it was pretty unprofessional for the moderator to keep saying one of the 2 men would be the next president. While it is obvious 3rd party doesn't have a chance in hell, it's pretty low to say stuff like that and just reinforces it.

I was really surprised McCain talked more about negatives than positives. Talking about good things you want to make happen is a lot better in this setting than talking about bad things you want to fix. The response reflected that, even though McCain was making sound points about waste. I feel like McCain was drilling that point way too much to the point it seemed off script. But I guess no way to tell.

[archibaldcrane]

I like Obama more in the debate purely because McCain was throwing up straw men like there was a crow infestation in the auditorium.

Rofl.