CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
6
Yes No
Debate Score:25
Arguments:15
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (4)

Debate Creator

addltd(5144) pic



Should Fox News limit the field of 2016 candidates in the first presidential deb

Fox News announced guidelines Wednesday that will winnow the field of participants in the first Republican debate of the 2016 presidential campaign.

The network will require contenders to place in the top 10 in an average of the five most recent national polls in the run-up to the event, narrowing what is expected to be a field of 16 or more by the Aug. 6 event in Cleveland.

The rule could trigger an early rush of spending by lower-tier candidates seeking to boost their standing in national surveys before the pivotal first forum....

 

Read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fox-news-to-limit-the-field-for-first-gop-presidential-debate/2015/05/20/7d4e0386-ff2e-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

 

Should Fox News limit the field of 2016 candidates in the first presidential debate?

Yes

Side Score: 19
VS.

No

Side Score: 6

I think it is a necessity because since there are so many candidates running, it would be a televised 3-ring circus that would most likely turn away a considerable amount of viewers. This is just my opinion, but I think the limit should be set at 5 candidates.

Side: Yes
3 points

a televised 3-ring circus is what i am COUNTING on.

its unavoidable, and in fact has already begun.

Side: Yes
3 points

I don't really agree with the way the debates are set up. There's nothing wrong with funding, but there is something to be said for candidates being evaluated based on theirs policies and ideas than their appearance and funding.

Side: Yes
Jace(5220) Clarified
3 points

I think that funding is an entirely relevant point of evaluation for every single candidate. It is one thing to espouse a view, and another thing entirely to actually pursue it; knowing who financed their election (and who thus holds the key to their re-election and political power) can help inform voters as to how they may actually act once in office.

All of that said, I rather wish that FOX would host the democrats and CNN the republicans. A more critical interrogation of the candidates would be quite refreshing.

Side: Yes
2 points

Ten are too many. But Fox can't be the selector. We'll just have to set back while the real candidates stand up.

Side: Yes
2 points

What next; last place teams play in the superbowl? Top ten candidates is sufficient. If you're upset, is it because your person is a one percenter?

Side: Yes
2 points

since when has fox news been in charge of the republican party?

oh, right..

nevermind

Side: No
2 points

To be fair, they only get about 1% of the country as viewership. They are not in charge of the Republican Party in any way.

They are simply a mouthpiece for them.

Side: Yes
Larry_Fine(12) Disputed
2 points

Nice try... they own cable news. I believe you meant to say MSNBC. Just ask Brian Who?

Side: No
skyfish(276) Clarified
1 point

so what you are saying is republicans should know that this down select via a "news" organization that all republicans are upset about, has not come from newscorp, but from the RNC itself.

.

they WANT it to go down this way....

.

the way of the Whig

Side: Yes
1 point

Burden of proof is on the positive claim.

Side: No