Get me a Santos/ Vinnick debate and I’ll tune in. Otherwise, insert drake nah meme here
i feel the vinick speech on religion is particular relevant these days
This country has never been a country that debates.
Kennedy famously trounced Nixon because he crushed him in the debate (mostly by looking better, but, also, he was Nixon and his ideas sucked)
Lincoln straight up master debatered his way to the White House after the Lincoln-Douglas debates made him famous.
The problem is not that America hasn’t had a debate tradition. The problem is that the last forty years it’s been neoliberals debating each other about how to suck less until now it’s neoliberals vs fascists and they’re, ya know, fascists.
There isn’t a debate. They just lie and rage about their made up enemies.
No offense, but if you’ve got to go back to Lincoln/Douglas for your most convincing argument for how the United States has a tradition of debate, I think you’ve lost the argument before you’ve finished your point.
Nixon/Kennedy, while often represented as a style vs substance debate (it wasn’t, Kennedy largely one on both based on broader polling than is generally trotted out, but his good looks to a televised audience certainly helps) is still more than two DECADES before the timetable you’re trying to lay out here.
The United States is a dying country. Be smart, pack your bags, and get to Europe or Canada.
Oh you mean the countries that can’t defend themselves? Woefully unprepared for large scale war?
Also, you’re blind as fuck if you think Canada isn’t gong through it, same with Britain and others in the eu
This rise of fascism isn’t localized just to the us
The likes of Canada, Australia, and (to varying degrees) Europe are slowly trudging their way toward fascism, but the US is attempting a speedrun at the moment. That’s a far greater threat than large scale war.
I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s a very real possibility that this will be the last meaningful election to be held in the US for the foreseeable future. The same can’t really be said for the others.
Debates require you to enter in good faith as if your perspective can be changed.
If you can’t commit to changing your mind you can’t debate.
Perhaps sway the audience, but I’ve never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.
Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I’d think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you’re on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.
They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.
Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.
If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.
I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed. I’m not actually suggesting that one does, necessarily, change their mind over the course of a debate. However, it can be incredibly convincing to show a shift in thinking (taking the audience with you) where you do cede some caveats, but use them to further your argument and make it more convincing.
I listen to intelligence squared, and I wish that debates were formally moderated and scored.
I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.
Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.
That being said, I don’t think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you’re in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.
Nothing to gain, everything to lose…
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Haley 40%
Trump 40%
DeSantis 4%
Ramaswamy 4%
Hutchinson 1%
With Ramaswamy out, that could change.
I would bet that Trump refuses to debate when he gets the nomination. Hey, no one seems to care.
Well, Trump did say that he’s “eager” to debate Biden in 2024. But, remembering back to the debate(s) with Biden in the previous campaign, it was absolutely useless and I had to turn it off. Trump would not stop shouting over Biden and everyone else.
Kinda starting to show that it’s not about policy and all about cult of personality
His people don’t want a debate, they want a rally, something to entertain their vanishingly small minds. The rest of us just want him to shut the fuck up and go away.
Tell Trump that Biden will be at the debate whether he decides to appear or not. And that Biden will get a free public town hall / softball interview if Trump isn’t there. And then follow through with it if he doesn’t appear.
