I think everyone can agree that these debates are all crap. From the format, to the moderators, to the randomly enforced time limits. They’re more like sound byte competition sessions, and nobody is getting anywhere because they’re all saying either the same thing or nothing at all. When someone actually starts to debate the over-riding issues such as foreign policy, they are ridiculed, mocked, jeered and childishly laughed at. I think part of the problem is the format of these “debates.” So here’s an idea:
How about a REAL debate?
I don’t mean like what we’ve been seeing. More like what goes on in colleges and high school classes all over the country. It’s obvious that Paul is the only well-read scholar in the group. I think if they had a strictly formatted, back and forth debate over just foreign policy, Dr. Paul would tear the competition apart. Candidates would be required to back up their arguments with documentation and evidence, and would not be able to rely on quips, jokes, and well planned PC rhetoric. Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
Policy Debate is a style of debating where two teams of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Teams normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counterplans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself. While rhetoric is important and reflected in the "speaker points" given to each debater, each round is usually decided based on who has "won" the argument according to the evidence and logic presented. Sometimes decisions can take a substantial amount of time with judges reviewing the textual evidence. Additionally, in certain segments of the activity, debaters may speak very rapidly, in order to present as much evidence and information as possible and counter the other side.
I suggest that Ron Paul challenge either Mitt Romney or John McCain to a substantive, meaningful, focused debate on foreign policy. It could be moderated by truly independent academics, not Fox News anchors. It would be regimented in advance so there would be no question about when a candidate can say what and for how long. I think it would shed a lot of light on the issue for the American Public.
What do you guys think?
How about a REAL debate?
I don’t mean like what we’ve been seeing. More like what goes on in colleges and high school classes all over the country. It’s obvious that Paul is the only well-read scholar in the group. I think if they had a strictly formatted, back and forth debate over just foreign policy, Dr. Paul would tear the competition apart. Candidates would be required to back up their arguments with documentation and evidence, and would not be able to rely on quips, jokes, and well planned PC rhetoric. Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
Policy Debate is a style of debating where two teams of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Teams normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counterplans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself. While rhetoric is important and reflected in the "speaker points" given to each debater, each round is usually decided based on who has "won" the argument according to the evidence and logic presented. Sometimes decisions can take a substantial amount of time with judges reviewing the textual evidence. Additionally, in certain segments of the activity, debaters may speak very rapidly, in order to present as much evidence and information as possible and counter the other side.
I suggest that Ron Paul challenge either Mitt Romney or John McCain to a substantive, meaningful, focused debate on foreign policy. It could be moderated by truly independent academics, not Fox News anchors. It would be regimented in advance so there would be no question about when a candidate can say what and for how long. I think it would shed a lot of light on the issue for the American Public.
What do you guys think?
