Originally posted by: chatbuster
of course, when one is debating like their lives or careers depended on it, then one is ultimately trying to score a knock-out or a win on points. that much is true.
but i dont buy into the rest of your argument- by hook or by crook. the presidential debates here in the US are very structured and there's not much opportunity for "crooked" foul play.
if you are implying that they can behave in any "hooked" manner and get away with it, then these guys know better. these politicians have media and PR advisors by the dozens who coach them on every technique and etiquette of debating. so to say that they dont have an idea of debating is far from it. in fact, if i may say so, i believe the reverse is true. they have more knowledge and wit than some of the folks i have seen elsewhereπ
they also know that the audience is very unforgiving here- it does not necessarily care for cheap tactics or foul means to show down the other candidate. but clever put-downs that might be construed as rude by some touchy-feely types is fine. we might actually want to use these guys as example to see what is or ought to be acceptable style for us as well.π
No, I am not implying that. Again, that would be generalisation. I for one know most of the politicians are coached too well to get away with anything. Though how much one sided a 'debate' can get can easily be seen from any O reilly or Nancy Grace or Greta van Susteren. That too is not a face of debate we want to be a part of. But that is not the point and we are in fact digressing.
comment:
p_commentcount