ELEVATE DEBATE :: SHOULD POLITICAL CANDIDATES BE REQUIRED TO DEBATE?
SHOULD POLITICAL CANDIDATES BE REQUIRED TO DEBATE? Tell us what you think here: https://t.co/RIVsjj72PK #Debate
— CreateDebate (@CreateDebate) August 18, 2016 ">SHOULD POLITICAL CANDIDATES BE REQUIRED TO DEBATE? Tell us what you think here: https://t.co/RIVsjj72PK #Debate
— CreateDebate (@CreateDebate) August 18, 2016
Yes, or face disqualification.
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No, it's a personal decision.
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, political candidates should be required to debate -- debate is the skill most used by elected officials in the performance of their duties, and it's vital for voters to understand candidates positions, and to evaluate candidates ability to express their positions in persuasive argument. Side: Yes, or face disqualification.
Yes, I believe political candidates should debate. I do not think they have to have every debate face to face. I think the candidates should be required to address a number of key polarizing topics such as: Women's Rights, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Immigration, Fiscal Policy, etc. I think they should debate those topics on a site like this for all to see and judge for themselves. I think they should come back and defend their position and if they change their mind, they should document it and say why! Let them come and debate! Side: Yes, or face disqualification.
i agree. the early, continuing, and sometimes elusive promise of the internet is to provide the ability to do VIRTUALLY anything you could do IRL (in real life) -- this unties us from the constraints of distance and even time itself. also -- using an online debating resource like CD takes the impetus of making a (political) debate less of an EVENT, and more of a PROCESS that should and could last throughout a campaign season. nothing wrong with changing your mind, as you say -- as long as you disclose WHY you might change a position. Furthermore, with the capabilities to stream live and archive (and transcribe), a site like CD can provide the infrastructure to host any debate requirement. The 2014 California Gubernatorial Debate was produced in a small studio with the two candidates, a few cameras, and moderators, streamed live to newsfeed, and instantly archived online for those voters who were not able to see it live -- thus proving that Public Debate no longer has to be an expensive and cumbersome production to execute. Side: Yes, or face disqualification.
There is no point in having a constitution or trying to preserve the constraints that we hold on government if politicians cannot be scrutinized themselves in the form of a debate. In order to ensure that the policies that any particular given politician is trying to push through, it is hugely important that they should be required to defend themselves and that they should be able to justify themselves in front of the public. For the sake of being held accountable, and for the sake of the democratic process, it is not only important that we know what decisions are being made by our leaders, but also why those decisions are being made. Side: Yes, or face disqualification.
|
I firmly believe in free speech and the power of debate and indeed want to see them debate. But I disagree with requiring it. 1) Ultimately it's the responsibility of us voters to reward or punish by the way we vote. If someone declines debating then we need to vote against them if that's what matters to us. 2) It's conceivable the best candidate for an elected position (not necessarily just for the Presidency) could be unable to conventionally debate. If they were partially or completely deaf or mute, if English were a second language for them, if they had crippling fear of public speaking, etc, they may not be able to debate well yet still know the most about all the issues facing the nation. If indeed their lack of public speaking ability hampers performing the job then see point 1. 3) It's also true sometimes one candidate or one side has a legitimate objection to the venue or format of a debate. Requiring debates opens the possibility the debate itself will be rigged in some way to give one side an advantage and the victim would still have no other choice but to go along with it or drop out. For example, if Fox News somehow negotiated exclusive rights to hold and moderate all debates I wouldn't blame a liberal or moderate candidate for simply refusing to do it. Reverse could be true of conservative candidates forced to go to liberal venues. Side: No, it's a personal decision.
I don't believe they should be forced to debate, it would be in-Constitutional to "force" them. It would also be stupid NOT TO! I think the next debate will be anything BUT. It will be a broken record of "Excuse me, excuse me, with little "debate", and a LOT of TRUMPISM's ... which I am soooo sick of! There is NO "elevation" (or etiquette), in a Trump debate. Otherwise it would be all one sided .... the OTHER way! Side: No, it's a personal decision.
In the case of any private citizen, I agree that it would be un-constitutional to "force," or require participation -- but in the case of a candidate for public office, it is the voters' "right-to-know" that should supersede any such consideration. Debate IS the skill that a public official will use in the performance of their duties, so, if elected -- they would certainly be required to debate. Side: Yes, or face disqualification.
1
point
Debate is only one element of the job. Maybe someone is great at quiet diplomacy, or writing good legislation, or finding ways to save money, etc., etc. People should have a much higher expectation of debates than what counts for debate today, but if someone doesn't debate you can meet them or research their opinions and decide based on that, or just decide not to vote for them. Having the state decide for you that you cannot have this person as an option because they did not debate is not a better solution. Side: No, it's a personal decision.
|
