Big debates are FAKE! How can we do better?

[shanen]

Proof of fakeness: In 2016 the big GOP debates led to Trump as the nominee.

So now the Democratic Party wants to do it the same way? Insanity is doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. (At least that's one famous definition, though I'm dubious about the attributions.

My specific suggestion is small debates (in the Lincoln-Douglas style), but given the past null reactions here, I'm not motivated to spend a lot of time writing it up here, so here's what I'm going to do. I'm posting this short comment as an intro to the topic and hoping you have a better idea, but I will also reply to my own thread with a copy of my letter to one of the minor candidates (whose policies I especially like).

[emulatorloo]

1. Claiming every thing is fake isn't a winning strategy

[shanen]

5. I want to agree, but it seems to be working for #Brokeahontas

Actually, I think "fake" has become part of the framing imposed on us by the #OrangeOxyMoron, but so is your negative and dismissive attitude. Don't you have anything more constructive to say?

Having said that, I explained my idea in a longer reply that appears below yours. I still thank you for your expression of interest, even if you expressed your interest in negative terms.

Tangential topic, but "framing" is part of high-level lying. I have developed a kind of ontology of lies, but it's probably irrelevant here. I'll just summarize and say that #CheetoJesus is a low-level liar, basically restricted to Level 0 (self-contradiction) and Level 1 (counterfactual). Most politicians and lawyers are centered on Level 2 (partial truth), but Trump has hired some powerful Level 3 (deframing) liars such as Bannon and Kellyanne Conway who are glad to exploit Trump's brand of fakeness for their own sinister purposes. Trump is always the puppet, rather like Dubya and Reagan before him.

[marylandblue]

14. You lost me at "#Brokahontas" which is a form of lying itself.

In which you simultaneously insinuate something negative about a rival while using a frame imposed by an enemy, then going to complain how that enemy imposes frames on us.

Then you go onto impose a "Leveling" framework which vastly simplifies the huge number of ways to lie, which is form of lying similar to Newspeak.

[shanen]

15. You can't completely ignore what works

One of the strengths of the American political system has been its relative openness. Each party can mostly see what works, in particular how they lost the last election, and try to avoid making the same mistakes. I say one of the YUGEST mistakes of the last election was to try to fight a pig like he was the Marquess of Queensberry. Trump is NOT going to stand up straight and avoid hitting below the belt, and if you think #Brokeahontas is beyond the pale, then you might as well get used to President-for-Life #CheetoJesus. I'm NOT saying that I like it, but it worked for him in 2016 and we need to work it against him now. There's no confusion or ambiguity here. You know EXACTLY who I'm referring to. (My favorite tag is actually #PresidentTweety.)

However, if you are actually asking (in an extremely rude way) for clarification on the ontology, I'll include a short summary. You get one mulligan before I ignore you, though the #Cheater-in-Chief claims infinite mulligans. (Does this system have a block list function? But what I really want is a maturity filter...)

Level 0. Self-contradiction. Where Trump wallows most of the time. You already know there's a lie without checking anything. The only question is whether it's one lie or two, since it's logically possible to contradict one lie with a bigger one.

Level 1. Counterfactual. Any fool can check the facts.

Level 2. Partial truth. Lawyers excel here, but it depends on keeping track of the truth and caring about your reputation, neither of which applies to the Donald.

Level 3. Deframing. This is where reality itself is redefined and distorted. It's the playground of the pros like Steve Bannon and Maryanne Conway. Reality is redefined so liberal = communist = meaningless. False assumptions like the infamous "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The question has already made you into a wife-beater. Various other techniques that leave you believing the sky has never been blue.

[marylandblue]

16. Go ahead and ignore me then, you are rude yourself.

[marylandblue]

20. I called you out for using a derogatory term for a Democratic rival.

Now I gather you may have meant something else, but no, I did not know that before. I'm pretty polite overall. When I see that someone apparently misinterpreted something I said, I try to explain myself better and correct any miscommunication. I don't assume they know what I meant, and don't immediately call them names or threaten to ignore them. Not everyone tries to correct miscommunications, but I highly recommend it.

There is an ignore function on this board, and you are welcome to use it. Or not. Your choice.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. You are aware this isn't Twitter, right?

You don’t have to put hashtags in front of everything.

[brooklynite]

2. Unrec

Large debates may be undesirable, but nothing about them is fake. And if you want smaller debates, please explain your model for selecting candidates and/or providing an audience for multiple debates with smaller groupings.

[shanen]

4. The candidates should challenge each other

Thank you for your expression of interest, though I hope I mostly addressed your questions in my longer reply (copied from email) which appears below yours. Essentially I think all the candidates, but especially the minor ones, should go head to head, and the the minor ones should be especially motivated to accept the challenges. The main investment is a few hours of their time.

The audiences can be quite small. However, per my longer suggestion below they should be making videos, and it would be great if some of the videos result in powerful digests of good ideas.

I hope this response (in conjunction with my longer reply) addresses your concerns and piques your interest. And again I think you for your courteous reply.

[sop]

26. Something similar to the seven Lincoln Douglas debates would be ideal

Each of the declared Democratic candidates would challenge another candidate (or two, but no more) to a one-on-one conversation in front of an audience with no moderators whatsoever. These conversations would continue for as long as the nomination process lasts.

Each conversation would be held wherever the candidates choose, with whatever audience make-up the candidates decide, and would last for (let's say) 90 minutes each, with commercial breaks every half hour, so corporate media would be motivated to promote and air the events. They could be televised locally, nationally or just on C-Span, depending on viewer interest. Journalists could attend, record the events, etc., but no one from a media organization could ask questions or set the format.

The topic(s) for the conversation(s) could be taxes, education, health care, foreign policy, immigration, etc.; limit the conversation to the one or two topics agreed upon by the participating candidates. Then let the candidates sit on stage and talk about the issue(s) as they pleased, challenge one another and generally hash it out among themselves. If they wanted, audience members could pose questions.

Moderators only get in the way in the existing debate format, what with their stupid "gotcha" BS questions, and trying to create conflicts for ratings. Let Bernie and Biden sit on a stage alone, face-to-face in two comfortable chairs, and discuss their proposed solutions for health care for 90 minutes. Warren could challenge Booker on Wall Street regulations. And so on. I think it would be very instructive.

[brooklynite]

27. After the candidates broadly agree on the same policy, how do you fill the extra time?

And if you're assuming 10 90-minute debates, how many do you imagine will get an audience? The average voter isn't that interested.

[sop]

30. You're right, it's much too civilized a way to select a presidential candidate, it would be boring

Let's allow moderators at the these cattle-call "debate" events to continue asking shit like: "VP Biden, you worked with avowed segregationists in the Senate, Senator Booker says you're really a racist, have you ever called anyone 'boy'?" Or, "Senator Warren, you want to provide free college for every HS graduate in America and regulate our free markets, doesn't that make you a Godless Communist?" And, "Mayor Pete, do you really believe good christians will accept your 'husband' as First Lady? Don't you believe in the Bible?"

Jeez, why not just have the men compare hand and finger size, and the women lift their tops. These debates are a circus, they're not intended to educate or inform voters, only to entertain and demean the political process. Best to just give all 24 of them knives and clubs, turn them loose in some arena and let them hack and beat one another to death.

[shanen]

3. So here's how I explained it in email to his campaign

[Slightly modified from email to the candidate titled "Get visible, get my money?":]

I really like your [Andrew Yang's] position on your issue, but if no one cares... I already threw away some money in 2016 and I'm not that rich.

Please challenge the other candidates to one-on-one debates. Each of you will get a chance to speak substantively on issues and then extract good bits for your ads. Small audiences are fine, but the potential impact could be large.

I suggest each debate be a set consisting of a pair or two pair of one-hour debates. May I recommend the Lincoln-Douglas format? I suggest you pick one question, and your opponent would pick another question, so each of you would get a chance to take your favorite position on your favorite issue.

The second pair? Might be more than you can handle, but I suggest you each take your opponent's side. Maybe you could agree to keep those opposition-practice videos secret? However I think it would do you a lot of good to tackle your own issue from the other side.

On your issue, two suggestions. I actually tried to find one of them on your website and failed. The second is a new idea.

(1) You should support a new kind of sales tax based on the category of expense. Essential goods and services (like food) would be tax free. Recreational stuff should be taxed at a high rate. In between there's investment-related stuff that should be taxed at an intermediate rate. The basic idea is to encourage people to use their UBI to stay alive and not "waste" it. (If the resulting economic growth is too slow, then the recreational tax rate should be increased and the investment rate should be reduced.)

(2) Thought experiment. Imagine everyone stopped working. How many people would actually have to go back to work to keep everyone alive? For food, it's about 10%, but it could be 20% if they work half-time. In other words, we need to rethink how the economy works in advanced societies. Another variation is to ask if creating art is valuable? If so, then there is also economic value in the people who appreciate art, even if that's how they are using their UBI. (My blog on this topic is called "Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite!"

Beyond your issue I have a tax-theory suggestion for pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation:

(3) A progressive profits tax linked to market share. The basic principle is that too much control over the market limits freedom. With this kind of tax approach it would be in the corporations' best interest to stop being cancers, but rather to divide themselves into competing companies that both start with the same good ideas and evolve (under competitive pressure) to be even better.

By the way, economics is completely wrongheaded. It's the TIME, stupid. Time is much more important than money, and it's really an equal thing for all of us. My 24 hours each day is the same as yours and Bill Gates' and Zuck's and the poorest beggar in India. I call it ekronomics, but so far I haven't been able to find anyone else who thinks this way... IOttMCO?

I really hope your campaign takes off, but so far I'm not seeing it. I'd love to see you on the ticket with one of the women candidates. Don't care who's in which slot.

[Codeine]

6. Unwieldy, maybe. Certainly not fake. nt

[shanen]

7. Have you ever participated in any formal debates?

Actually, I never did L-D (Lincoln-Douglas) debates, but always team (C-X) debates (and some extemp). But let me assure you that it is really easy to consume an entire hour with a single topic and only two positions (affirmative and negative) on that topic. The topic will NOT be exhausted and you won't be able to cover every aspect of the topic.

You can refute me easily, however. Can you point at a single example of a substantive statement from the large "unwieldy" GOP debates of 2016? I don't think so, and most of the reason was desperation to use tiny slices of time to maximum effect. All that survived were Trump's insults.

I don't want to squabble about definitions, but 10 people does NOT a debate make. Actually, one of the most important techniques of good debating is to make sure the definitions of key terms are what you think they are. Now I would say that it's part of Level 3 (deframing) techniques, but many real debates can be won or lost because of the definitions that get established early in the debate.

Let me try to word it in terms of your favorite candidate, Kamala Harris. I actually like her, though she isn't my favorite. In terms of my suggestion, what topical question would she like to discuss at some length? If she used my suggestion, then she would get half of the one-on-one debate as time to discuss that topic as deeply as she can, and her main cost would be having to participate in a second debate where she would be responding to the other candididate's favorite topic.

By the way, in case it isn't obvious, I think she should pick her question based on the opponent. If she knows that the candidate agrees with her on one issue, then she should try to pick some other topic where she knows they have clear disagreements.

One more thing: In the context of L-D debates, the excuse for any misstatement or error is always baked in: "Yes, I said that in the debate, but it was my job to take that side of the argument in that debate and all of you know that my REAL position is quite different." However in my longer version of the suggestion, I suggested controlling the videos. Perhaps there shouldn't even be a live audience?

[Codeine]

10. I did team debates in my Academic Competition

classes in high school, an embarrassingly long time ago. But honestly, political debates have little in common with formal debate formats. Comparing the two may scratch an intellectual itch, but they really cannot be compared.

I think the sticking point in this conversation, and why you’re getting a little pushback, is your use of the term “fake”. That smacks of predetermined outcomes or falsified content. I think your expanded statements clarify what you’re saying, but “fake” has immediate conversational connotations. If you just mean that these mass debates suck and produce terrible results lacking in anything substantive, well then I imagine we’re all on the same page. Any debate outside of a formal debate format usually just consists of regurgitated talking points and cheap shots, which is why formal debate rules are generally avoided by canny politicians.

My solution would not please you, however. Nobody is going to watch fifty+ one on one debates; again, that’s just scratching an intellectual itch. The field needs winnowing, and the minnows need to be culled. There’s no point in pretending Yang (who I really find impressive, btw) or Klobuchar and the like are competitive candidates at this stage, and as such I would cut them from any debates. Hell, if Kamala keeps slipping she might not reach my qualification criteria. Maybe a second debate group for those who get cut, but in all real honesty they just don’t need to be taking up space on a stage where they aren’t going to matter.

Bear in mind I’m not bashing anybody, it’s just that most of these campaigns are going nowhere this time. In a few cycles many of these minnows may be real competition, but right now? Nah.

[shanen]

12. Why are you agreeing me with such a negative tone?

Okay I will admit that I used "fake" as a marketing term, but the giant debates are NOT real and deserve every negative label available. However these days most marketing is fake, too. It's quite difficult to produce truly superior products (or truly superior political candidates). The last increments of quality are expensive, but it's MUCH cheaper to lie in your ads. Actually, if #Brokeahontas has any actual talent, that's it. Low level lying.

However, mostly you seem to be agreeing with me but don't seem to be aware of it. In particular, I'm NOT suggesting that anyone in their right mind would want to watch "fifty+" debates, especially when we agree that "most of these campaigns are going nowhere". In a couple of months, there's only going to be one candidate.

Think of it more like a debate tournament. No one but the judge and maybe a couple of your friends watched your prelim rounds, but if you won most of your prelims you started getting bigger and bigger crowds. Hard for me to remember, but I think we went to the semi-finals or finals at one tournament, but our biggest audience was at the octa-finals at the state tournament. (When I met my debate partner again at a high school reunion (after many years), she had the weird fake memory of our winning the tournament, when all we won was the qualifying tournament a few weeks earlier. I even remember that we were taken out by Spurke and Retterman from Mullen Prep, using a canned negative, where Spurke was the younger brother of an extremely skilled and infamous debater.)

[brooklynite]

28. "as such I would cut them from any debates"

On what arbitrary basis do you decide who's a "real" candidate six months before anyone starts voting?

[Codeine]

29. Sheer pigheadedness and pique.

It isn’t as if I have the power to do so, and if I did I’d almost certainly be far more circumspect with the application of said power. But given my position as a mere observer I can make sweeping statements and broad generalizations to my heart’s content, free of any world world concerns or potential impact.

Such is the nature of a discussion board.

[NewJeffCT]

8. They should have had 3 or 4 nights

instead of two nights. That way, each candidate gets more time to air their own views. With 20 candidates or so over two nights, most of them will be trying to get that memorable quote in

[shanen]

9. Why not 20 or 30 nights?

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2019, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)

The responses to your question are not obvious... They [the "geniuses" running the DNC] apparently perceive it as some kind of fairness thing, but they also want to attract big audiences. I think it is completely wrongheaded.

As my suggestion would work, there might be any number of limited one-on-one debates. Obviously it is more in the interest of the minor candidates to have lots of debates, but there's nothing wrong with that, even though most of their debates will never be seen by any significant number of people. Some of the minor candidates simply don't deserve to be on the same stage with the big candidates, but if they have won a bunch of preliminary debates on the way up, then at least they'll be more likely to give a creditable and interesting performance when they get a shot at the champ or even at one of the top candidates.

At least you had an alternative suggestion, though I think it's kind of weak tea. Can you come up with a better one?

[Codeine]

11. Like a playoff system.

That’s not an awful idea at all actually, but good luck getting anyone to sign on. In theory I’m right with you on this one, but in practice it probably wouldn’t fly.

[shanen]

13. First round victory?

I should have read this reply first. You [Codeine] already had come to the conclusion that we were in agreement.

I actually considered a formal playoff system, but also rejected it as unflyable. That's why I pitched it as something the minor candidates can do on their own WITHOUT any support from on high. That includes the DNC or the leading candidates. There's basically no way to stop the minor candidates from debating each other to their hearts' content.

In the pitch for Yang I deliberately focused on his favorite issue, but there's no reason not to do 10 issues or to reword his favorite issue in 10 different ways. His affirmative case can evolve and improve just like a regular season of debate. (My own problem was that I believed in my own affirmative case and therefore found it hard to debate the negative against similar cases.)

So if I actually have persuaded one person it's a good idea, how do I (we?) persuade a second? Or do we want to jump directly to advocating a Harris/Yang ticket? (Another "feature" of this approach is that each candidate would get a deeper understanding of the others, possibly as a V-P pick.)

[RandySF]

17. Fewer candidates.

[shanen]

19. As a suggestion?

I think you're offering that as a suggestion, but how do you propose to implement it?

Or to reword the problem in terms of my suggestion, they wanted to attract good candidates, but they didn't provide any mechanism to decide who is good. My approach is to let the less good candidates test each other for goodness. I can't think of a better approach than letting them debate at some length against each other, even if no one ever pays much attention.

Hmm... I realize that I didn't say anything about how these preliminary rounds would be judged. I'd say at least three judges, and the criteria should be agreed upon in advance. It needs to mean something when you say "I've won 5 debates on this issue, so let me debate against a tougher opponent."

[loyalsister]

21. They aren't actually debates

A more accurate description interactive forum. Campaigns are so superficial and sensationalized the all they are good for is eliciting a catchy Barb here and there. It's the nature of infotainment.
One of the worst things to happen to campaigns was when parties took over the debates which the League of Women Voters had run with neutral moderators.

[shanen]

22. No truth in advertising, eh?

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2019, 07:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Basically just a concurrence, but what I'm suggesting would be actual debates with some substance.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much interest on DU and less at the DNC. However if there had been, I was expecting Ted Cruz to be cited as the counterexample...

[Eric J in MN]

23. If 20 candidates is treated as a given

....then the debates should have been scheduled for four consecutive nights, five candidates per night.

[Demsrule86]

25. God no...there are too many candidates...let the lowest drop out.