Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

"However, what my opponent has completely forgotten is the manner in which the arguments are presented. Take for instance the famous John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon debate in which Nixon became nervous, sweaty, and unsure of himself. Through this, we not only learned that Nixon was a bad public speaker, but was intellectually inferior as well." WAIT WAIT WAIT.... That there is some BAD DEDUCTION! I've heard many insults tossed at Nixon... the bad public speaking, unscrupulousness, profanity, pragmatism... but intellectually inferior? First off being a poor public speaker (or more precisely public *actor*, the radio audience noticed nothing amiss with his speaking, indeed polls of radio listeners indicated a belief that Nixon won the debate, it was solely the television viewers who believed the opposite), does not mean one is intellectually inferior. It means one isn't good at choreographing one's movements, controlling one's appearance, and whatnot, essentially a physical rather than mental exercise. Secondly, even those who disagree with him politically (Greenspan for example) who came into contact with him note him for unusual intelligence. He DID after all figure out a way to open China to trade without the use of force... Like the consequences of that achievement or not, it's not an easy thing to do, not something a stupid man would pull off. Whereas Kennedy was noted, of course, for such stupid ideas as sending a bunch of Cuban exiles, trained not by military professionals but by the Central Intelligence Agency, not known for training infantry, to invade a place in Cuba where they would be cut off from other rebel movements, unable to retreat, already known about before they were sent, essentially a waste of resources. The mere fact that you could draw the conclusion that Nixon was less intelligent than Kennedy from the televised debates is proof of a weakness in them. "Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided." I don't have to prove that zero voters would be misguided. Zero voters aren't misguided now. The point is that the present debates don't really tell us anything. The number of voters who could be informed is significant- the internet is after all widespread. 70% of Americans have it in their homes to be exact. Are anywhere near 70% of websites hacked in a way that causes them to give an altered message? I think not. Even the CIA websites, though they may have been hacked for access, are not frequently altered by those hacks. Hacking is a difficult proposition, stupid people aren't able to do it often. Yet any hacker can tell you that leaving signs of hacking (for example by altering a website regularly combed over by paid presidential staffers in a way that causes them to say a thing they wouldn't say) is about the stupidest move possible. " 3) My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands. He starts off by saying that these 30% of Americans could just go to their public libraries. However, this is simply not practical. Imagine: 100 million Americans rushing to libraries and having to wait their turn. Obviously, this will not happen. But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed. " You forgot the possibility of publishing transcripts. "Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds." "Honey, I'm recording the debates!" Not gonna fly in the average household. You state reading is active... at least you don't have to remember to do it right away. Recording is a one-and done deal, and except for the small percentage of Tivo users requires a blank tape lying around. And even then, video debates aren't exactly designed to be picked up. And that still doesn't address the profound lack of content those video debates have. " 5) My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it was never addressed. " I did not consider it worthy of address, for reasons I had thought would be obvious. Television debates have so little substance there is very little point twisting them. Also, this contradicts your later idea that "Americans know when they are being deceived," make up your mind :D. " To that, I ask my opponent to stop being condescending to Americans. Americans realize when they are being deceived." Empirical data indicates that this is obviously a lie Americans like to tell themselves (or more precisely average people everywhere). The following study of various cross-sections of America checked many group's capacity for lie detection. It contained several professional groups, a group of average people who signed up for a special-interest seminar on lying at the university that did the research, and a group of ordinary college students. Of these groups, only the Secret Service outperformed random chance when it came to lie detection. And note these were just the best liars they could get for the study who were trying to fool them. Researchers. Politicians, however, they are in the business of it. Poor detectors, and excellent evaders of detection, all in the television format, which LIVES off deception (Is the average dysfunctional family fully made up and looking their best most of the time? No. Is the average sitcom dysfunctional family?) That doesn't speak too well for accuracy. "And most of all, Americans are NOT stupid." Just look at who we elect, and repeat that the majority of Americans are not stupid... Please. The American electorate contains a large share of the people who sat there and nodded when people like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, or Ted Haggard talk about "Family values." It has a large share of the people who nodded when they heard John Edwards say the same thing, though less aggressively... or when they heard him talk about his identification with the poor, not noticing the expensive haircuts. Every time a major scandal comes out about an elected official, it somehow strikes a lot of people as shocking. This can have only one meaning, when one considers that those are the same people who voted for that official: They voted for him before, they won't vote for him now, so he must not have been what they thought when they voted for them, in short, they must have been DECEIVED. And there have been a lot of scandals lately. Give it a try. Phase in one electronic debate this year, and phase out one televised ones. I guarantee you'll like the results enough to follow it to it's conclusion :D.