Why no real debates any more?

[Original_Intent]

These moderated "debates" are really nothing more than discussions, pretty much under the control of the moderators. Why doesn't someone host a debate where the candidates get to talk about what they want to and they can question and challenge each other?

Is it that the candidates don't favor a battle of ideas vs ideas, or is it the MSM that wants to "control the message" or what?

I figured out that with ten candidates, you could have every candidate go one on one with every other candidate for 30 minutes in a total of 22.5 hours of programming.

Yes it would be moderated as far as time limits and there would need to be a time organization such as each get 3 minutes for opening remarks, a time for each candidate to challenge the other one's position(s) etc.

The entire thing would take about 6 hours to do, it could easily be done over two days, 3 houirs per day and then could be broadcast on C-SPAN or anyone who wanted to air it repeatedly. Can you imagine how well you would know the candidates positions after such an event? Plus we would avoid listening to a moderator speak about stupid crap like "Do you believe in evolution?" or terrorist scenarios. It also gives each candidate 100% equal opportunity to express themselves and no concerns of bias on the part of the moderators/hosts.

Thoughts?

[Gee]

Why doesn't someone host a debate where the candidates get to talk about what they want to and they can question and challenge each other?
Because the candidates wouldn't come. Politicians don't like to actually talk about the issues, with the exception of certain points that poll well. Debates might force them to go into detail which might drive away some voters.

[Ava]

It would be wonderful to see a full debate. I don't see it happening though, because most of the candidates are inconsistent, unprincipled, and would represent themselves poorly at a debate. Most candidates don't want people to know their position, because they do not represent the people.

In short, Ron Paul would destroy them.

[ShaneC]

I purpose that we find out when RP will be in the same state as another Candidate, and offer up the challenge to debate whilst on the campaign trail.

Err...not so much "we" this would be entirely up to HQ....but you get the idea

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Here's hoping a couple candidates will drop off before the Aug 5 debate. Not likely, as the pulpit is the whole reason they're running. But after that, the crowd should thin, making it easier for the candidates to go directly after each other a la Giuliani vs Paul in the second debate. I don't know if there are other debates scheduled. Won't PBS be having one?

[MozoVote]

Candidates are more likely to goof up some facts or get emotional in a real debate, leaving behind something on tape that will be replayed to their embarrasment.

Even the famous Lincoln/Douglas debate was not an interplay between the candidates. It was two speeches.

[kylejack]

Opendebates.org. Watch the videos. George Farrah will blow you away.

[Bryan]

I've thought a youtube style debate would be great. Basically Dr. Paul could ask a question for each of the candidates and provide his own answer. Responses could then get other video responses and so on.

This would be worth much more to me than knowing that a candidate has all the pertinent numbers and fact memorized- statements could be more polished and there are no time constraints.

[Kuldebar]

Also, the majority of the American Public would be even more bored if actual points, counter points and facts were discussed at any length.

Seriously, our modern society hates facts and any critical analysis. And, on a more practical note, most of the candidates (with the obvious exceptions) are pretty much incapable of delivering up any perspective, insight or principled analysis.

It appears that decades of government funding in public education has finally achieved something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy).

[UtahApocalypse]

I've thought a youtube style debate would be great. Basically Dr. Paul could ask a question for each of the candidates and provide his own answer. Responses could then get other video responses and so on.


Too bad that CNN has full control and will pre-pick all the clips used. I doubt that we will see much of a change other then it's questions from the "people"

[WannaBfree]

It appears that decades of government funding in public education has finally achieved something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy).

Yes, they want us dumb.

Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Who Controls Our Children? (video 60 min)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7398714418354815608

[Original_Intent]

Yes, they want us dumb.

Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Who Controls Our Children? (video 60 min)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7398714418354815608

thanks for those links.

[lucius]

It appears that decades of government funding in public education has finally achieved something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy).

Executing a plan to intentionally retard individuals for state control is not difficult, but it does require vast resources, such as “government funding in public education”. American 20th Century Schooling is based upon the Prussian model. John Gatto in his “Underground History of American Education” explains this concept well in Chapter 7, The Prussian Connection:

“In no uncertain terms Fichte told Prussia the party was over. Children would have to be disciplined through a new form of universal conditioning. They could no longer be trusted to their parents. Look what Napoleon had done by banishing sentiment in the interests of nationalism. Through forced schooling, everyone would learn that "work makes free," and working for the State, even laying down one’s life to its commands, was the greatest freedom of all. Here in the genius of semantic redefinition lay the power to cloud men’s minds, a power later packaged and sold by public relations pioneers Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee in the seedtime of American forced schooling.”

Link to Chapter 7: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/7a.htm

I only discovered your link to ‘Idiocracy’ when I was posting. Thanks!

[Gee]

Also, the majority of the American Public would be even more bored if actual points, counter points and facts were discussed at any length.
I doubt it. The public would be bored over a bunch of long-shot no-name candidates, but they don't have much say in it. The major candidates with the money to get elected are usually few in number, so the decision is mostly theirs. It is not in their best interest to have a real debate, so they won't agree to appear in one. The result is that no debate can take place without the major candidates, and no new candidate can become major unless the large media outlets (who are few in number) decide to grant that candidate celebrity status.

This will end when the number of viable candidates increases, and becomes less dependent on money and television appearances. The internet will eventually completely replace the political process as we know it. The internet essentially uses market processes to determine the popular candidates, and we all know that markets (while not being completely efficient) work very well.