How many DUers here have debate experience?

[PermanentRevolution]

And I'm not talking about watching them. How many people here have participated in a live debate before? National Forensics League, Mock Senate, Model U.N. or the like?

The reason I ask is that one of the most frequent criticisms I've read tonight has been about John Edwards' lack of response to some of Cheney's lies. Some are saying that Edwards should have been more thorough, refuting each of Cheney's statements. But those who have been in a live debate before understand that this isn't a reasonable belief. When you're debating, you're half-listening to your opponent and half-preparing your next response. You pick a few statements that you are confident about and jot down whatever notes you might need to refute it. But if you try and listen to everything and refute everything that gets said, you inevitably get bogged down in trying to cram too much into a single answer, and it inevitably backfires. Perhaps there were a few instances where Edwards chose the wrong statements to counter, and I'm sure we all have different ideas about what specifics he should have refuted and which he should have ignored. But until you're up there doing it, you can't really understand what a challenge it can be to put together a comprehensive, clear, and memorable statement in a matter of less than a minute.

Edwards did fine. He was up against a pro, and he managed to get in quite a few solid blows. For the most part, his arguments were well-articulated, and his easygoing and plain-spoken style is bound to have gone over well with moderates and undecideds. I wish he had gone after Cheney a little more aggressively, but the decision to stick to campaign talking points wasn't a huge detriment. In short, John held his own against a far more experienced opponent. Cut him a little slack for not refuting every single lie that came from Cheney's mouth. If he had tried to do that, he'd have been too busy writing them all down to come up with anything to say.

[cheezus]

1. I was captain of the high school debate team

got me all the chicks. oh yeah ;)

Never won state, but placed a few times. Never qualified for Nats, but got close.

Also did student congress and speech (something to do in the debate off season)

Lincoln-Douglas. Quad-Ruby winner in the NFL.

Never did any debating in my six years of college :sigh:

[PermanentRevolution]

5. excellent

Double-ruby, myself. Our Model U.N. team came damn close to taking State my senior year. I believe, irony of ironies, that I was the delegate from Iraq.

Likewise, let it slide in college. Oh, well...

[cheezus]

6. oh, how I wanted to do model-UN

but we didn't have the money for it

oh well, at least they got congress competitions going before I graduated

[Bucky]

9. Who are you and why do you have my biography?

Except the gettin' the chicks part. I wasn't that good a debater.

[cheezus]

13. odd story, re: getting the chicks

I originally met my wife because she was on the debate team of the rival high school in town.
She "won" the first round that we ever faced off in, but I *swear* that's because the judge was an incompetent college freshman ;)

[splat]

2. process

Maybe he knew that the media loves to check facts, and would fisk Cheney on their own in the days to come?

If he factored that in on the fly, this team is more sophisticated than I thought.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. I disagree. Your premise is skewed.

Why? Because tis John Edwards who is the trained expert, not Dick Cheney.

As such Edwards did an excellent job getting his message across and not allowing Cheney to pull him astray.

Cheney, on the other hand, tried to boggle Edwards with a knowledge of political history. His only ace (or so Cheney thought). Yes, Cheney tried to trump Edwards with the "age card" and it didn't work. It didn't phase Edwards one bit; he didn't bite. Edwards refuted Cheney with facts -- simple facts.

Overall, Edwards "kept it simple, stupid" just as he should. Said what he had to say with a clear, crisp delivery.

edited for typo

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. Many years

High school (NFL) and college (NDT). Coached a bit too. Been out of it for close to 20 years though. Competative debate has very few similarities to politcal debates like this. But for what it's worth and issues, policy adn politics aside, I give this round to Edwards.

[cheezus]

7. no kidding on the "few similarities"

but did you notice how JRE was using his legal pad to flow the debate?

I always used them sideways, but I never went to law school.

[PermanentRevolution]

11. Well...

I've never been in a political debate like this, but I'd think the basics are similar enough. You're still trying to craft a response to your opponent's statement with very little time. Sure, there's a lot more prep work in a political debate, I guess, but we prepped like mad for all our competitions. How well you know the facts is only as important as how well you can get those facts across.

I think Edwards made a very good showing tonight. I don't think it was a decisive victory from an objective standpoint, but he went against 30 years' political experience and did it well. I give this round to Edwards, too. A draw is a win when you're a young Senator going up against a sitting VP.

[eleny]

8. I did some debating in college and agree with you

In fact, as Edwards was jotting, I thought that he was jotting down what he wanted to say in response to Cheney's statements. I used to do that since my answers spoke to the issue and put me ahead a few seconds. No need to write what my opponent was saying.

Anyhow, bottom line is that I agree with you. And btw, the moderator was pretty lame. a few time, she didn't give Edwards the 30 seconds he thought he was going to get for rebuttal. So it can upset your rythym when the mod is sideways from the format.

I'm watching the repeat now and am feeling some different things about Cheney. At first viewing, I thought he remained calm throughout. But this time around I'm watching him while Edwards speaks. Cheney is blinking a lot and taking some deep inhales. He's not as calm as I thought earlier this evening. He appears pretty troubled.

[incapsulated]

10. High School, here

And you make a good point about not being able to refute every single lie that came out of Cheney's mouth, that would be impossible. However, I was very impressed with Edwards ability to do exactly that so often during the forgein policy part of the debate. I lost count of how many times I shouted "c'mon, John, nail him on that shit", and, by gum, he did! And threw in a few whacks Cheney didn't see coming!

I disagree with you that Cheney is some seasoned pro, however. He uses his monotone drone, his "experience" and his age to give the appearance of gravitas and crediblity. He is nasty and mean. This will usually be enough to intimidate or subdue an opponent. Not tonight. Edwards came out swinging, very aggressive, and gave him and the audience the message that he wasn't indimidated or impressed with Cheney, who was diminished from that point on. All he could do was make nasty asides, repeat tired attack lines and try to bore everyone to death.

[autorank]

19. Right on target.

Cheney needs a willing victim for his nasty mojo to work. Edwards doesn't back down, therefore Cheney's weapon doesn't work. It all sounds like "Magic, the Gathering." Seriously, if somebody whispered "Daddy never loved you" into Cheney's earpiece (inside joke from another thread), Cheney would just smile and think "I never loved Daddy either."

[incapsulated]

24. Thanks.

Too true, he wouldn't care. For Cheney, "Your stock has plummeted" would be a better message in the earpiece.


Edited because: missed the "inside joke" part. Too tired, shouldn't be posting! :hi:

[Gyre]

12. I've been a trial lawyer for 10 years

and I think Edwards did great!!! :toast:

Gyre

[politicat]

14. Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in HS and Uni; Mock Trial in both.

And yes, I agree. He picked good points and left the lies - the big lies - for the press.

The moderator was an absolute horror, though... that woman should never be allowed within 20 miles of a debate again... It's absolutely unforgivable to mess up with questions as badly as she did...

Pcat

[PermanentRevolution]

16. She made it painful to watch...

She was like a morning talk-show version of a debate moderator. And not a very good one, at that.

[politicat]

27. Yep... a small town, only TV station Morning "poisonality." *twitch*

eom

[autorank]

15. Plenty. Nationals in HS and College. Did pretty well.

Structured debate is actually much easier (if you're prepared) than the Edwards-Cheney format tonight. You get time to take notes, prepare counter arguments, and, most importantly, think of snide off-handed remarks that rankle your opponent. You also cross examine your opponent, which is where the fur flies.

Tonight's debate was before a huge audience and for very high stakes. There were two key questions: would Edwards show that he could play in the 'bigs' and would one or the other win the debate outright? Edwards accomplished the first point through his poise and by avoiding asucker-punch from the dirtiest fighter in American politics. He was crisp, attacked well, and failed to waiver, even a little. The winner of the debate itself has more to do with what rhetorical guru Aristotle called 'ethos' - the credibility that the speaker establishes with the audience. In that regard, Edwards was excellent. He came across as sincere and able to handle pressure. Who would you trust your future with is another form of the 'ethos' question. The answer is clearly Edwards. The 'logos', or analytic portion of the debate, was a toss up. I think expectations and hopes were high for another one-sided victory. That was not going to happen and did not occur. Of real interest, there was an air of resignation on Cheney's part passing on two rebuttals. This is a clue to something that may unfold in a few days.

Think of where Clinton started as a public speaker (Dem Conv '88) and where he ended up as an orator and debater. I believe that the national stage is unique and requires experience. The next time Edwards shows up for a major speech or debate, he'll have this under his belt and let loose with the flourishes we know he has in him.

Great post!!!

[CityHall]

20. What happened toward the end

I agree, but I think Cheney had a big lead on the 'logos' side of the debate through the first half hour, and that was the only side going. He knew it and Edwards probably knew it. But that's only really appealing to people who mostly agree with him or would be inclined to because of their socioeconomic position.

I think Cheney slumped with the Halliburton question, because it really drove home that a response that he would consider accurate and that would score as a win at the City Club would be seen as disastrous by the viewing audience. Cheney debated foreign policy the way he would if he were in a meeting with cabinet members, and he fell off a bit when he had to distract people from his laissez-faire views toward social programs and the economy.

As someone said four years ago, "He's a compassionate conservative. Being compassionate, he cares about your problems. Being a conservative, they're _your_ problems."

[autorank]

26. I'm not disagreeing...well maybe I am...on the first 30 minutes.

I had an online exchange tonight with my college debate mentor who called it the way you saw it. I thought Edwards scored some major points in the first segment. I was impressed since it was foreign policy. My take is that he reiterated the key Iraq arguments -- why go after Sadam; could you have done a worse job of post-war planning; Tora Bora; and the contractors are crooks. All this debate talk leads me to watch the debate again. But, hey, I'm biased. It took DNA results to get me to even accept the possiblity that Clinton had whatever with 'that woman.'

[SammyBlue]

17. I did solo Lincoln Douglas in high school

And was highly ranked in the state.

My father, in college, was on a debate team ranked in the top 5.

His crowning debating moment is when his small state college in New York destroyed three Ivy League school in 1970 to win a HUGE northeastern competition.

He taught me how to debate.

From what I remember, you don't need to refute point but point in the rebuttal time. You can illustrate different perspectives and solutions to problems posed.

However, if you do not refute some things, the other side will win evantually.

Edwards is fabulous tonight. Don't let the asshat media whores lie to you.

[CityHall]

18. Could have done better

I think I could have done a better job than Edwards with no preparation, off the cuff, on the foreign policy stuff. Also, when you debate, you follow every word the opponent says. If you're any good, you can speak without really preparing your points in advance except in a vague sense.

The danger though is that they have to avoid issues that would, for example, offend Saudi Arabia, while I'm not really aware of what would be too dangerous to say. Where Edwards did a great job was the lawyer side of things, making an emotional appeal to the audience about economic issues.

The other danger is that repeating your opponent's points to rebut them may just reinforce them in the minds of people who aren't following too carefully - not an issue in a formal debate competition. Also, you can seem too mean if you really pound someone over the head the way I'd be inclined to do on the issues of counting Iraqi casualties, or letting Bin Laden (and his family) escape.

[MazeRat7]

21. My limited observation

I am not a debater or lawyer...as a matter of fact I am an engineer. However there is one tactic I noticed JE doing that seemed to throw Cheney off on a couple of occasions.

He would tear the top sheet of his pad off. It was rather audible and on one occasion made Cheney stutter and look over at JE.

I thought it was a pretty good move.....

MZr7

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

22. You're absolutely right and I have participated

on debate teams, even on the university level. It is HARD core.

[depakid]

23. I think the question is better directed toward the audience

Whether any of us have experience with CEDA or NDT or Extemp matters little. How it comes across matters a lot...

John Edwards had some several chances to roundhouse a knock out blow- and even though he pulled his punch (for whatever reason- Depa thinks it's because he's a Southerner and North Carolinian) that he felt like, lets be polite- but that doesn't mean that he's weak-. It means that he's DLC and I figure willing to learn- and listen, from all sides.

It's probably what our country needs, but it's not how I might have advised going about doing it.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Questions for you debating mavens: remember when Gwen

interjected a comment about Edwards not really answering the question she asked but talking about another issue?

1) Was she right? I hadn't listened as carefully as I should have because I couldn't honestly say "You lying Repub!" at her, though I thought she was wrong. I'll watch it again on TiVo but don't want to do it now, being sure someone else will know.

2) Wasn't it totally inappropriate of her to say that? I was taken aback.


Based on watching presidential debates since Kennedy-Nixon at least (I don't remember that Ike and Stevenson debated but remember watching each speak on television in 1956), I thought Edwards won, though not as obviously as Kerry won last week. Cheney is articulate and has a lot of facts (and lies) in memory to bring out. He gives an impression of knowing what he's doing, partly because he looks grandfatherly. This gravitas was spoiled by flashes of hubris and annoyance, though.

I didn't expect Edwards to win in a rout but to parry very skillfully and to fight to at least a draw. I was interested to see how well he did in this format but expected him to do well since he'd been so successful in the courtroom. He's going to be a formidable future Democratic presidential candidate, I think. He gives a hell of a stump speech and he can think on his feet (or on his ass, in this case) in a debate. He showed tonight that he's not just a pretty boy who can whip up a crowd with populist talk.

[politicat]

29. In general the moderator should remain outside of the contest....

but since I have not seen the rules of engagement for this one, I can't say so certainly.

Pcat

[JCMach1]

28. It is even worse when the stakes of election are out there

not only are you formulating your answer to the question, you have to think where you can attack your opponent.

It takes skill, practice and nerves of steel.

[autorank]

30. Audience Judgment and Ethos -- Question settled for now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x886986#886989

From ‘jobycom’ s most outstanding post (see above)

THE AUDIENCE RESPONSE

(CBS) John Edwards continued the Democratic ticket’s winning streak in Tuesday night's vice presidential debate. He was judged the winner by uncommitted voters who watched the debate, just as John Kerry was last week.

Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Edwards won the encounter, while 28 percent chose Vice President Dick Cheney. Another 31 percent thought it was a tie.

-----
ETHOS

The North Carolina Senator is better liked than the vice president, with 82 percent of the men and 72 percent of the women saying they would like Edwards personally. Half of both the men and the women said Cheney was likeable.

This settles it, for now anyway. Edwards wins the according to ‘the audience’ and wins hand’s down on ‘ethos.’

There is a god!!!

[Gore1FL]

31. I did College Debate at UM-St. Louis

When I did it, I was the one that made the outline as the oppossing team presented their case, and matched the refutatins of our case.

Technically, if you drop a point EVER, it is conceded -- but these POTUS and VPOTUS debates really aren't debates by the standard I debated. These are a twisted Lincoln Douglas debate format, and the rules are different from my experience.

[Pepperbelly]

34. Cheney dropped almost every press ...

and tried to refute through distortion.

[markus]

32. I agree

While going through old video tapes, I watched myself in 1988 debating a member of congress on local public television over Dukakis. This put me in mind of what it's like to be the guy on stage.

You need to take the questions and use them to stay on your position, which should include attacking your opponent on message (attacking from your planned message).

Once you start to go down the path of spending too much time on refutation, you will start to lose your focus.

As someone who's done after event spin work before, the place to tear appart your opponents lies is via surrogates afterware, which is exactly what the Kerry camp is doing.

[Pepperbelly]

33. college NDT here and Edwards DESTROYED Cheney by any

criteria or measure.

Totally.

If one were to flow the debate, it would be even more apparent.