Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

" My first argument--that through textual internet debates, the audience would not know who is writing--still stands. " And my point that that applies equally to televised debates (you don't know who wrote the argument, just who is reciting them) still stands. "Because of Bush's lack of public speaking skills, he is often looked at as a brainless donkey to other nations. " Grammar. Not speaking skills as such, just grammar, word choice and whatnot. He lacks word skills, the speech-specific ones are largely fine (sure as heck ain't nervous!) In other words, Bush's weaknesses would show up just as much in writing (And we'd notice that he probably can't spell too well :D.) And I should note, even if DEBATES are moved to the electronic realm, people still give speeches at rallies or whatnot (The candidates do, if you watch the news, spend an abnormally long time in front of microphones, most of it having nothing to do with debates). You won't miss opportunities to hear the candidates speak, so, if speaking skills are important, it's still not relevant. "Surely, if the debate website was hacked, a significant amount of voters would be misguided. " You haven't proved such significance. " And no, television debates do not lead more people to be misguided. Again, Americans are not stupid. We can comprehend and critically analyze what we hear." Addressed that. "The CIA has had its contents hacked AND CHANGED numerous times. " Source? And for how long? When I access several public portions of the CIA websites, they seem rather intact. Note that the CIA is much more useful to hack, too, than a website with debates on it. Various governments would put up hundreds of millions of dollars to get certain bits of intelligence. "nd what if the hackers insert a virus like some hackers did recently to Wikipedia (http://en.wikinews.org......)? That would be disastrous!" The hypothetical debate site, frankly is not a wiki. It's, in layout, theoretically similar to this, if narrower in scope and higher in security. " First, publishing 100 million transcripts (or 50 million if you take out the ones who don't vote) is simply impractical." We already publish voters pamphlets in similar amounts, don't we? It's on a state by state basis, but still... "Why fix something that isn't broken?-- TV is fine!" Then why does such content as I described in my first argument pass for debate on television? It's certainly broken. The presidents we elect are evidence for this, unless you hold that the presidents we elect are optimal. " He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point." I do accept the point that stupid people are deterred from reading. But stupid people aren't going to vote very well no matter what we do. Those who do not read are inherently misinformed, that is why the word "illiterate" carries such a negative connotation. Reading is what people who wish to become truly informed do. Watching television programs is by and large a copout, ineffective if one wishes to gain more than a superficial understanding. " Yes, Americans understand when they are being deceived when they get to hear the arguments first hand, NOT twisted by some pundit's diatribe" A pundit's diatribe IS an argument. If a pundit can twist someone, a politician can do the same. " This complete "study" you speak of is completely unverifiable... mainly because we (the audience and I) have no idea what study you are talking about. I could be blind, but I see no sources. Everything falling under this evidence must be ignored. " Sorry, I thought I gave the source... here lemme comb through my history... http://www.psych.umn.edu... Have fun. " My opponent continues to confirm his belief that Americans are stupid. " The majority, yes. Not Americans as such. "If Americans are stupid, as you believe, then they would not be able to comprehend hours and hours of debate material." Most Americans can't. What's your point? Those who can are better served with written arguments than verbal, as these sit still long enough to be comprehended. " My opponent goes on to point out many public scandals to prove that those who dislike the scandaler may have once liked the person, and thus had been deceived. However, how does that prove that electronic presidential debates are better? " I didn't claim it did. It proves the flaw in television. I gave the evidence that electronic debates are better in separate parts of my argument, specifically, it sits still long enough to be subjected to logical analysis, you can't shout anyone down in them, you can't interrupt them (nor have to worry about interrupting them), there are no time limits that discourage a lengthy treatment of ideas, etc.