Would TV debates be more civil if everyone was pointing guns?

[Fife]

[Speaker to Animals]

What if we just got rid of the debates and made them write essays.

[Fife]

What if we just got rid of the debates and made them write essays.

White privilege. Terrorism. Bigotry. Patriarchy. I'm sure there is more wrong with your idea.

[Kazmyr]

What if we just got rid of the debates and made them write essays.

At that point, might as well try to see who can sling the dankest memes.

[Fife]

What if we just got rid of the debates and made them write essays.

At that point, might as well try to see who can sling the dankest memes.

9999

[Otern]

TV debates usually suck because neither side get the time to properly conduct their argument. So whoever wins, are usually the ones most proficient at making complex issues sound simple.

Best way would be two people, and perhaps a moderator in the middle, with a team of fact checkers. The moderator's job should be to try to make the opponents understand each others argument. Not agree, but understand. And the fact checkers, should be checking the science behind the claims, whenever one side is using the "science argument". And these kinds of debates shouldn't last anywhere less than three hours. One hour, is barely enough to make each side conduct a well reasoned argument, but it's not enough to make the other side understand where one's coming from.

[Hwen Hoshino]

TV debates usually suck because neither side get the time to properly conduct their argument. So whoever wins, are usually the ones most proficient at making complex issues sound simple.

Best way would be two people, and perhaps a moderator in the middle, with a team of fact checkers. The moderator's job should be to try to make the opponents understand each others argument. Not agree, but understand. And the fact checkers, should be checking the science behind the claims, whenever one side is using the "science argument". And these kinds of debates shouldn't last anywhere less than three hours. One hour, is barely enough to make each side conduct a well reasoned argument, but it's not enough to make the other side understand where one's coming from.

Have you watched Intelligence Squared debates?

[Speaker to Animals]

TV debates usually suck because neither side get the time to properly conduct their argument. So whoever wins, are usually the ones most proficient at making complex issues sound simple.

Best way would be two people, and perhaps a moderator in the middle, with a team of fact checkers. The moderator's job should be to try to make the opponents understand each others argument. Not agree, but understand. And the fact checkers, should be checking the science behind the claims, whenever one side is using the "science argument". And these kinds of debates shouldn't last anywhere less than three hours. One hour, is barely enough to make each side conduct a well reasoned argument, but it's not enough to make the other side understand where one's coming from.

Or competing essays in a national newspaper.

Obviously, the professional politicians like Hillary Clinton would have somebody write it for them, so I am not sure if it will gain you much with them.

But perhaps we could alter the debate format so that, instead of inane questions from the cable "news" actors, they simply agreed to debate a single topic, and were each given a long period of time to speak to duplicate the effect of a debate in the papers like we had before radio and television.

[Montegriffo]

TV debates usually suck because neither side get the time to properly conduct their argument. So whoever wins, are usually the ones most proficient at making complex issues sound simple.

Best way would be two people, and perhaps a moderator in the middle, with a team of fact checkers. The moderator's job should be to try to make the opponents understand each others argument. Not agree, but understand. And the fact checkers, should be checking the science behind the claims, whenever one side is using the "science argument". And these kinds of debates shouldn't last anywhere less than three hours. One hour, is barely enough to make each side conduct a well reasoned argument, but it's not enough to make the other side understand where one's coming from.

If TV debates were all about searching for the truth this would be a possible way to go forward. However as they are more about ratings, then shouting over each other in bad tempered displays of dogma is how they will continue to be organised.

[apeman]

We need to bring duels back.