From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Debating again Re: Chicken George, where are you?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:00:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>+kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Just wondering if you know. Who decides who the moderator will be in
>this format?

Sorry, I don't know.  But considering how little influence they can
have over the content of debate, it doesn't really matter who it is.

>Rather "in the old format." If the debators are the ones who will ask

It isn't really the "old format"  It's only been around for about 
15-20 years.  The commission's format reflects traditional debate,
which has been a scholarly activity for centuries.

>the questions, then what is the role of the moderator in those debates?

The moderator directs whose turn it is to pose a question, keeps answers
within the time limit, tells them when its time to change the subject,
and enforces whatever debating rules need to be enforced.  S/he is
like a referee.

>How will the discussions be initiated?

I'm not sure in this case, but generally, the moderator will announce the
topic and announce whose gets to ask the first question.  Its very much
like a sporting event.

>On the other hand, Presidents don't do a lot of debating once they are
>in office. At least not quite the debating that this format is using.
>They do a lot of arranged photo ops and press conferences. They don't
>always go mano-a-mano with a protestor or a Senator or whatever.

I've never heard of a President doing this.  Why should they?  They've
got their job.  

>Well, that sure takes out the spontaneity that I thought the debate
>format would have. It is also easier for the debaters to formulate
>catch-phrases/sound-bites a la "Jack Kennedy" (the remark to me was
>great because it was/seemed to be spontaneous) that they could try to
>use to "trump" the other debater. (Not that that already happens
>anyway.)

No, actually, it would be very spontaneous.  Any candidate can prepare
a list of answers to all the questions that are likely to be asked
by a journalist.  However, it isn't so easy to have a two-way discussion
on a subject.  This requires thinking on your feet.  You may know what
your opponent will ask you, but if you can't defend your point against
cross-examination, you're history.

>Now don't get me wrong. I would like to see some spontaneous debating
>between the two candidates, but their debate isn't like the debates I
>see on the network. 

Thats because we don't get to see real debates on the networks. 

>Everyone here gets a chance to expound on his/her
>thoughts fully and respond accordingly to others. 

To which format are you refering?

>Oh, aren't you glad that we didn't have a debate yet? We might have to
>invite Ross to participate in the other debates now.

You can't really have a three way debate, but I'd sure like to see
Clinton debate Perot.  Actually, I'd like to see Clinton debate
anyone - he'd blow them out of the water.  He actually knows how
to have a point-counterpoint discussion rather than just make
bold statements that he doesn't have to answer for.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh