Presidential Debates Should Be Hosted on Internet Forums

Think about it. In a live debate, a lot of the focus is on charisma and persuading people. Is that really the most important aspect we should be focusing on? When you debate in writing, you have time to gather sources and arguments between posts, making debates rely much more on using facts to convince rather than charisma.

If you delay the response, you give the debater time to come up with more bull shit.  Not that they don't give us bull shit to begin with.  Just saying.

Also:
Takes longer to answer and you open the door to a flood of questions with no filter.

We had a 'presidential' kind of debate for the leaders of the political parties in the last general election.

I really hope they don't do it again. Parties should be chosen on their policies and values not on whether the leader is good at debating (arguing).

I'd be in favor of this. More can be covered in a post than a live reply and it'd be easier to call someone out on their bs

You'd have people like 'The Knowledge' spamming the threads with nonsense like "He's not a real Republican. None of them are. He's a troll.", ClockTower equivalents bawwwing "So you can't actually prove that you want to spend more on health care? Noted." and the likes of Chris spaghetti "But what about all the poor vegetarian lesbian voters who want to have abortions? agggghhhh *rage* !!!! ". It'd be a mess.

You'd have people like 'The Knowledge' spamming the threads with nonsense like "He's not a real Republican. None of them are. He's a troll.", ClockTower equivalents bawwwing "So you can't actually prove that you want to spend more on health care? Noted." and the likes of Chris spaghetti "But what about all the poor vegetarian lesbian voters who want to have abortions? agggghhhh *rage* !!!! ". It'd be a mess.

Not to mention Thork queefing everywhere.

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

And yet you voted Bush. Twice.

Quote from: rooster on April 24, 2012, 09:48:15 PM

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

And yet you voted Bush. Twice.

How did Bush do in those debates?

I'm genuinely intrigued, because I can't imagine it was any good.

Quote from: rooster on April 24, 2012, 09:48:15 PM

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

And yet you voted Bush. Twice.

I wasn't old enough to vote then...

Quote from: Thork on April 24, 2012, 11:37:50 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 24, 2012, 09:48:15 PM

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

And yet you voted Bush. Twice.

How did Bush do in those debates?

I'm genuinely intrigued, because I can't imagine it was any good.

>2012
>People still convincing themselves that Bush was not intelligent

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on April 24, 2012, 11:45:25 PM

Quote from: Thork on April 24, 2012, 11:37:50 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 24, 2012, 09:48:15 PM

Speaking of queefing....

I like the live debates. You get to see how much they actually know about their position, their ability to keep cool under pressure, and their reasoning skills. You really get to see a dumbass be a dumbass and a smarty pants be a smarty pants.

And yet you voted Bush. Twice.

How did Bush do in those debates?

I'm genuinely intrigued, because I can't imagine it was any good.

>2012
>People still convincing themselves that Bush was not intelligent

Nobody said anything about Bush being unintelligent.

Bush was not intelligent.

We had a 'presidential' kind of debate for the leaders of the political parties in the last general election.

I really hope they don't do it again. Parties should be chosen on their policies and values not on whether the leader is good at debating (arguing).

I hope they don't do it again because it fosters this nonsense idea that we vote for the PM and feeds the sort of idiots who used to 'argue' that "Waahhh we never voted for Gordon Brown!!!!!11!!"

The only useful leaders debates would be between the different potential leaders of the parties (e.g. Ed and david Milliband) and then, only to registered members of the party.

I think constituency-level debates held in the local church hall or something (sort of like Question Time) would be a good idea, but the PM's debate is a bit pointless.

Actually, I disagree with this suggestion.  I can see the logic behind it, that we shouldn't value style over substance, but that is human nature.  Maybe if we could change human nature so that everyone was perfectly logical, it would be a good idea, but we obviously can't.  So simply having the right plans and the right positions on issues isn't enough to make someone a good president.  To a certain degree, a successful president does have to be charismatic, as well as good at negotiation and persuasion.  They will be dealing with the American people, other politicians, and other countries.  You can't just plow through that with "But I'm right about the issues!"

Interestingly enough, that's something that Ron Paul fanboys don't seem to understand.

Quote from: Thork on April 24, 2012, 11:22:02 AM

You'd have people like 'The Knowledge' spamming the threads with nonsense like "He's not a real Republican. None of them are. He's a troll.", ClockTower equivalents bawwwing "So you can't actually prove that you want to spend more on health care? Noted." and the likes of Chris spaghetti "But what about all the poor vegetarian lesbian voters who want to have abortions? agggghhhh *rage* !!!! ". It'd be a mess.

Not to mention Thork queefing everywhere.

Not if peons weren't given permission to post in the debate threads