If you simply want Obama to state his positions (or lies, in my estimate) then go home unchallenged, your model would be great, but it wouldn't be a debate - it would be a stump speech.Excuse me? Did you even read my post?I am partisan when it comes to philosophical beliefs and political ideals. I am not partisan when it comes to particular individuals.If I were running the debate, both parties would have had exactly the same amount of time to speak. Neither would have been allowed to interrupt either me or each other. Only the moderator (me) would be allowed to interrupt to indicate that the speaker's time had expired. At that time I would expect him (or her) to shut his mouth and wait for the next question. When I asked the next question, that is the question that would be answered, or I would cut the speaker off. Doesn't matter which one it was.A debate is an exchange of ideas, an exchange of points, an opportunity to challenge someone elses' ideas face to face instead of having to try to refute unfounded or founded charges by remote means.While this is true, it doesn't mean that it needs to be a free-for-all in which the loudest big-mouth gets to drown out everyone else.Under my rules, they would answer the question asked in the time allotted. They would stop speaking when I told them to (when their time was up). If they could not follow my rules they would lose a turn to speak. If they continued to fail to follow my rules they would be escorted from the stage and the remainder of the time would be given to the opponent.Fair is fair. Follow the rules or stay home. This applies equally to both sides.Got it?AM
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra