MyDD :: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE*

Put up or shut up- let's debate! UPDATE

by ragekage, Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:19:03 PM EST

I've noticed a lot of diaries here are delving into minutae, unsupported and ad hominem attacks on our candidates, and generally thoroughly unflattering reflections on our community as a whole.

So I thought I'd make a modest proposal- and no, not one involving eating Irish babies- about a way Obama and Clinton supporters can address this.

Let's have a debate.

Obviously, we're having a debate right now, back and forth in the comments sections of diaries, and with the diaries themselves. But I'm talking a good, old-fashioned, back-and-forth debate on the issues and such surrounding this campaign, our candidates, et cetera.

We take the two or three strongest diarists from each side of the MyDD aisle- nominated or voted upon by the members of each side- and pit them against each other in a no-holds barred battle on the sticking points that continue to drive us apart in this contentious primary battle.

A panel of judges who we can agree upon that are neutral and acceptable to both sides would also be necessary, of course.

We can further the dialog between us without devolving into "ZOMG JERK!" and "TROLL RATE ABUSE!" or somesuch other ridiculous happening, and also without ignoring/skipping out on the really hard questions.

As for a format, we could obviously do something web-based; someone brings up an argument, say, one of the judges, and we point-counterpoint until the judge is satisfied the question has been addressed, even if not agreed upon.

Even more intriguing, but perhaps slightly more difficult to accomplish, would be to stage a telephony-linked debate. A conference call of some sort, where all involved could phone in and debate realtime and in person. A recording could be made for posterity's sake, and everyone else could listen in realtime.

For discussion's sake, I'd throw out the following names for the sides/judges: UPDATE- From the comments below-

OBAMA-
Bob Johnson
Lettuce
Ragekage

CLINTON-
Alegre
TexasDarlin
Bobbank

JUDGES-
Todd
Jonahan Singer
Sricki or VAAlex
Student Guy ("The Doc")
? (Obama leaning, perhaps, since all those mentioned above are Clinton supporters)

What say you folk?

UPDATE- Generating a lot of interest. Let's keep this going- spread the word.

Tags: Johnathan Swift, debate, Clinton, Obama, primary (all tags)

Permalink :: 69 Comments :: Post a Comment

This won't likely happen (2.00 / 2)

But, for an Obama leaning but capable of being neutral judge I'd nominate Johnathon Singer.

It is funny I just got out of a thread saying that a debate won't happen and here I say the same thing.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST

Re: This won't likely happen (2.00 / 2)

Heh. Well, let's ante up the challenge and make it happen.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reason I say it is not likely to happen (none / 0)

is that Clinton supporters are the dominant force here. Debate gives the weaker side a chance to make an appeal. The stronger side doesn't want that to happen. After all why should the Clinton supporters who often write diaries that get on the rec list take a break from that successful tactic.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reason I say it is not likely to happen (none / 0)

What an interesting parallel.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

which was why I thought it was quite funny that I just came from the Lincoln Douglas debate thread.

I argued the exact same thing only flip the sides around.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reason I say it is not likely to happen (2.00 / 2)

I disagree, as a strong supporter of Clinton I do not want an echo-chamber. If I did I would go visit hillaryclinton.com. I agree there are more Clinton supporters here, but there are enough Obama supporters I feel the balance is pretty good. There always seems to be at least one pro-Obama diary in the rec list.

I didn't 'leave' dailykos because there was strong Obama support there, I left because I felt there was not enough balance and that seems to be what Markos desires. If mydd became just a Hillary site I would leave it as well.

I enjoy the Obama supporters here (well, most of them).

by oaktownchicken on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cool idea. Might I cast a ballot? (2.00 / 4)

If your are talking about bloggers for Obama, RK why not include yourself. You would have my vote. As far as the Clinton side how about newhamster? And, I think Lieber would be great as a judge )if for nothing more than keeping it all in perspective).

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST

Re: Cool idea. Might I cast a ballot? (2.00 / 4)

Good ideas, there, but I didn't want to nominate myself. I figured the community should decide, in any case.

Well, let's get this thing a-rollin'.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it means anything (2.00 / 3)

(and I know it's an up hill battle), I Rec'd your diary and will mojo anyone who supports the idea.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, and by the way (2.00 / 2)

your humility is admirable, but take credit where credit is due. In my experience here you are on of the few who remains firmly committed to reality and understands that a healthy sense of humor can get anyone through anything.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who can win this debate (2.00 / 3)

If nothing else, I think it would be a lot of fun.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST

Re: Who can win this debate (2.00 / 4)

Absolutely. Any suggestions on issues, participants, et cetera.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who can win this debate (2.00 / 4)

For me personally, I would like to see a debate on foreign policy.

I would also nominate politicsmatters for the Obama side. That woman's got some smarts as we say here in the sticks.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who can win this debate (2.00 / 1)

I second the nomination of politicsmatters. She is always so calm and unflappable, at least in the posts I have seen.

by Roberta on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As far as issues (2.00 / 3)

Health care has got to be on the list. I mean Arkitect (probably spelled that wrong - my apologies) wrote a really thoughtful diary on this the other day that barely got noticed.

Obviously, Iraq, Iran, the war on terror meme.

But how about getting into the why of support. I mean what is the genesis of why you support your candidate. If one of your goals (and I believe it is) in advocating this debate is to ramp down the rhetoric and focus more on the issues, then (at least IMHO) that getting into the personal "why's" of support will to humanize each side and maybe make us all remember who the real enemy is.

BTB: RK, I hope that this takes off. I am late for a party so I am going to have to drop out for now. I will check back.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This would be entertaining if people would try it. (2.00 / 5)

Student Guy and TomP would also make excellent judges, by the way. They've both shown themselves capable of remarkable objectivity, and SG definitely used to lean Obama. He seems pretty neutral overall lately.

I'd love to judge, but I bet a lot of Hillary supporters would be pretty pissed about VAAlex
and me. We've now both written "Obama's pretty cool, and we can't wait to work our asses off for him if he's the nominee" diaries, so I'm not sure how popular we'll be around here. But even though we're not ultra-partisan maniacs, we still frequently come to Hillary's defense. So maybe people would accept it.

Question is, would people be willing to participate?

by sricki on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 2)

I agree.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I forgot to add (2.00 / 3)

that I think you would make a great judge and I also think VAAlex would be fine.

Both y'all (at least in the comments/diaries I have read) exhibit a commitment to staying on the issues and ignoring the pie-fights.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 5)

I don't think Clinton supporters might be as enthusiastic, as Student Guy points out, because they are the dominant force here and have everything to lose and nothing to gain by engaging in such a debate.

But it would indeed be great fun, if nothing else.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 3)

I'd like to think a few would be, but I worry that the less rational Clinton supporters are the ones who'd be most eager to "debate". They might make the rest of us look like fools. I have one diary I've been meaning to write for forever, and I think it would spark a huge number of arguments (unfortunately, it would lead to more arguing than debating). I want to address all the "Hillary is a race-baiter" complaints. It would have to be unbelievably long, and it would take awhile to write. And of course, I wouldn't be able to judge that one.

I also think you should be writing on behalf of Obama.

by sricki on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 3)

Well, that's why I nominated the heavy-hitters from each side, and think we should have a consensus from everyone on whom should debate. Letting KnowVox debate on the Clinton side, and KathyM on the Obama side, for example, doesn't help either side. Both are passionate for their candidate, but not in the right way.

Alegre, TexasDarlin, et all, would be obvious candidates. I think they would be interested in the debate, considering how strongly they feel, yes?

;)

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes n/t (2.00 / 2)

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 1)

I'd be interested in seeing that diary. For one thing I'd like to see counter-arguments to it that take into account the fact that there's lots of people who think that the Clinton campaign is guilty of race-baiting.

In other words I'd like to see a diary on the topic that rises beyond "you guys are trying to pull a fast one", because we're really, really not.

by Mostly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining if people would try (2.00 / 1)

I think most of the race-baiting charges are easily refuted, but complete explanations would be lengthy, for obvious reasons. A good bit of analysis and evidence would be required. For the 3 AM ad, in particular, I'd probably need to include a lot of information about subliminal advertising in order to effectively illustrate my point.

This is my biggest sticking point with Obama supporters. I honestly believe that there has been absolutely no race-baiting, with the exception of Bill's Jesse Jackson comments in SC. I'll freely concede that to you. It was disgraceful.

by sricki on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sean Wilentz (none / 0)

Here's Clinton's quote and Wilentz' historical observations. Perhaps, after you have read Wilentz' comment on the subject, you could explain what Clinton said this is inappropriate.

On January 26, Obama won a major victory in South Carolina by gaining the overwhelming majority of the black vote and a much smaller percentage of the white vote, for a grand total of 55 percent. Although the turnout, of course, was much larger for the 2008 primaries than for any previous primary or caucus, Obama had assembled a victorious coalition analogous to that built by Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 South Carolina caucuses. (Bill Clinton won the 1992 state primary with 69 percent of the vote, far outstripping either Jackson's or Obama's percentages.)

When asked by a reporter on primary day why it would take two Clintons to beat Obama, the former president, in good humor, laughed and said that he would not take the bait:

"Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good organization."

According to Obama and his supporters, here was yet another example of subtle race-baiting. Clinton had made no mention of race. But by likening Jackson's victories and Obama's impending victory and by praising Obama as a good candidate not simply in South Carolina but everywhere, Clinton was trying to turn Obama into the "black" candidate and racialize the campaign. Or so the pro-Obama camp charged.

Clinton's sly trick, supposedly, was to mention Jackson and no other Democrat who had previously prevailed in South Carolina--thereby demeaning Obama's almost certain victory as a "black" thing. But the fact remains that Clinton, who watches internal polls closely and is an astute observer, knew whereof he spoke: when the returns were counted, Obama's and Jackson's percentages of the overall vote and the key to their victories--a heavy majority among blacks--truly were comparable. The only other Democrats Clinton could have mentioned would have been himself (who won more than two-thirds of the vote in 1992, far more than either Jackson or Obama) and John Edwards (who won only 45 percent in 2004, far less than either Jackson or Obama). Given the differences, given that by mentioning himself, Clinton could have easily been criticized for being self-congratulatory, and given that Edwards had not yet dropped out of the 2008 race, the omissions were not at all surprising. By mentioning Jackson alone, the former president was being accurate--and, perhaps, both modest and polite. But Obama's supporters willfully hammered him as a cagey race-baiter.

Not everyone agreed with the race-baiting charge--including Jesse Jackson himself. Jackson noted proudly to Essence magazine that he had, indeed, won in 1984 and 1988, and, even though he had endorsed Obama, criticized the Obama campaign, saying, "again, I think it's some more gotcha politics."

by Little Otter on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This would be entertaining (2.00 / 4)

I think both you and Student Guy would make good judges, sricki.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would say that.. (2.00 / 2)

I have too much sympathy for Obama to be truly neutral (I have been trying to be objective lately but that is not the same thing as being neutral). Ask 4justice and KnowVox (for examples) my name is mud among hard-core Clinton supporters. TomP would be excellent in a judge position in my opinion.

I would love to see this happen but the reality is that is is unlikely for the same reason that Obama is unlikely to accept any more debates. The dominant side (well according to delegate math anyway and perception in the media) doesn't like to give the weaker side a forum to speak their beliefs.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to say (2.00 / 2)

first, that from what I have read here you have been quite objective - it's always difficult to totally avoid partisan zeal.

Second, that the attribute a judge would have to show in such a setting is objectivity.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.00 / 1)

I will say that I lost objectivity on a few occaissons (like when the George Wallace diary came up), but I strive to remove the bias and get the truth.

(I could quote my art history teacher who chastised me fro believing while sale what a 1250's Sienian said about Florence wwhen they were bitter rivals for control of Tuscany :-D )

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would say that.. (2.00 / 3)

Sure, but I'm partisan, too. Most of us are. If we only allow truly neutral people to judge, TomP is the only person I can think of who fits the bill. Besides, I'll bet you anything my name is mud among some of the most hardcore Clinton supporters, too.

Really, if we could just get a couple of people on each side willing to write for their candidates, that might be enough to start with.

by sricki on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I suppose (2.00 / 2)

I panel of someone like you (still a Clinton supporter, but from what any rational person could say recently is pretty objective) and someone like myself (someone who has more sympathy towards Obama than Clinton but again any rational person could say is objective) would be fair to the debaters.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! (2.00 / 5)

I would gladly debate on behalf of Hillary. :)

by bobbank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:01:30 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! (2.00 / 3)

Well, while Bob and I might disagree on candidates, I will concede he's certainly level-headed and an able person to stand up for the Clinton side.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then, (2.00 / 3)

let's make it happen, capt'in.

by UrbanRedneck on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would say that bob (2.00 / 3)

is rational in his debating (having had a discussion with him several times) and thus in my opinion a better advocate for his candidate than either Alegre who uses disingenuous attacks a little too often and TexasDarlin who goes into the gutter too much (these are my opinions.

A RK/BB debate would be very good in my opinion (or throw in another rational Obama supporter if your Opinion of RK is mud due to his use of pictures for humor.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I vote yay (2.00 / 3)

Let's get this to happen. At the very least, all the ideas from each side would be connected together.

by ProgressiveDL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST

I recced this and seeing a pretty good advocate (2.00 / 2)

for Sen. Clinton come to bat makes me think that this idea could come off. We might not get the "big names" on each side but I think this should happen as bobbank is willing to step up.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST

Re: I recced this and seeing a pretty good advocat (2.00 / 1)

Agreed. I suppose we could scale it down if the big boys aren't going to be game.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I recced this and seeing a pretty good advocat (2.00 / 1)

Let's do it 'Iron Chef' style...bobbank can pick his opponent, and ragekage can choose the secret ingredient.

If we get this going, maybe the "big names" will follow?

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I recced this and seeing a pretty good advocat (2.00 / 1)

PS...my husband makes me watch that show, I'm not really that nerdy. I swear.

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here are some issues that give both sides a (2.00 / 3)

chance to show off the best their candidate has too offer (these are my opinions)

In foreign Policy:
Diplomacy with leaders who are seen as beligerant
Relations with Iran
Relations with China/India/Russia (the up and coming economic powerhouses)
Aid to Africa
Relationship with South America and Cuba

In domestic Policy:
Health-Insurance Reform (aka health care reform)
Job creation
Foreclosure crisis
Transportation funding (I am from MN so yeah...)
Education funding
Aid for college students
Alternative fuels
GLBT issues
Urban revival
Free trade

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:29:17 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (2.00 / 3)

I'm not sure how this would all work out given the limitations of this, and what a reasonable metric for 'judging' would be but if something can be worked out, I would be glad to help. But my bias is well known. :)

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (2.00 / 2)

Any suggestions on those issues?

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (2.00 / 2)

Was the case made and proven using facts, not talking points or passive aggressive insults (for instance?).

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would say that the judges (2.00 / 2)

get to call shenanigans on lies or falsehoods that get out there. Also they'd get to call bogus on crap attacks like the falg pin bs and anything dredged up about the Clinton's troubles in the 1990's.

Also your bias is known, as is mine, as is sricki's, as is almost anyone on this blog (except maybe TomP who dislikes both candidates and who be very happy to have Edwards back in the race). You were included as a judge because you have shown rationality (or at least that is my guess).

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Love TomP (2.00 / 2)

But as you know, I was an Edwards supporter and we spent many an EENR together.

Of course, the question needs to be asked, who is gonna ask the questions? The judges (moderators)?

accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking

by Sychotic1 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was an Edwards supporter originally (2.00 / 2)

too (as I loved his message about getting the special interests out of the game and his willingness to fight for the little guy (he seemed to channel Paul Wellstone in my opinion and that is a very high compliment from a MN populist). I listed some possible issues to discuss upstream that are fair.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would say that the judges (2.00 / 2)

I appreciate the kind words, and I always thought that 'objective' and 'Clinton supporter' need not be mutually exclusive. I can be objective when looking at an argument rationally but I can still voice my support for Senator Clinton. These not need be exclusive comments.

What I also have is a low tolerance for b.s. arguments, from both campaigns. And there have been whoppers ...

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 1)

I saw that in Alegre's latest thread today. I attempted to be polite instead to try to influence in a different way.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (2.00 / 3)

Nice idea, Mr. Rage. I would suggest that each debator start and end the debate 'speaking' to something they admire about the candidate they do not support.

by oaktownchicken on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST

Intiguing idea, ragekage. How would the rest (2.00 / 3)

of us participate? I would be willing just to lurk and then form my own opinion as to how it went. It would definitely offer an opportunity for some of us to get beyond - baby steps ;-] - our intransigence. Way to think outside the box, Corpsman rk... ;-]

Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.

by Rumarhazzit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST

Re: Intiguing idea, ragekage. How would the rest (2.00 / 2)

Well, like the other diaries, we could post comments on it. I think a spoken debate would be the best option; it would allow for more dialog, and a faster pace than written as if on here.

Thanks for the support, Marine. Semper Fi.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, we hardly agree on anything these (2.00 / 1)

days - except our committment to support the eventual nominee, no matter who it turns out to be - but I do recognize a good-faith attempt to put a little WD-40 on a rusted up nut when I see one. I can't wait until we're all on the same page pulling for the same person, whether it be him or her. There sure is a gi-normous amount of passion here. McCain should be very afraid! ;-]

Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.

by Rumarhazzit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intiguing idea, ragekage. How would the rest (none / 0)

This is a dumb question, but how can it be spoken?

by Roberta on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intiguing idea, ragekage. How would the rest (none / 0)

Conference call setup would probably be the easiest, since most everyone has phones, but not everyone has access to telephony gear.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Format (none / 0)

I was assuming the debate would take place on MyDD - conference call would probably get less participation (aside from the debaters).

Question is - can our caretakers set up a thread so that only certain people are able to post to it? There would need to be some time constraints, maybe.

Or - we could do it over IRC or something like that.

I think if it's going to be issue-based, it would be helpful to pick on specific topic in advance, and give the contestants time to do some fact-finding and prepare some refrences for themselves, etc.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM EST

Re: Format (none / 0)

Precisely. Well, I don't think we'd want undue interference during the debate, but we definitely want participation.

With a conference call, we could have the debate, and post it for everyone to listen to, for posterity's sake. I've fired off emails to Todd and Jonathan on the point about a forum thread you brought up. IRC is also not a bad idea. Would be easy to moderate in the way you suggest.

Absolutely. We can give it a week's notice- say, next week Saturday or Sunday- before the NC/IN primary, and giving each side time to prepare.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am working on getting some issues (none / 0)

that are important and fair to both candidates in play. I'd like to see your inputs on them.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

interesting stuff

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

quick question what are they judged on?

Because I think by now that MyDD has proven that you can write diaries that are sorta "technically" true but yet full of so much spin, like Jerome (not to pick on him) his front page diary about Hillary being in the lead in pop vote. while its sorta technially true but its based on a whole lot of disputed assumptions. how do you judge an answer along those lines?

the judges would have to agree on a basic things like, MI and FL do not count untill the DNC say they count, or the popular vote is based on only sanction races for which we have exact totals for

stuff like that, otherwise how do you judge answers? it turns into what we have now :-P

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:21:31 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

Well, if the judges were truly impartial, then perhaps they could judge the veracity of such arguments and give a judgment on who made the better point.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

you kid yourself to think anyone is TRULY impartial

ask all your judges their stances on it and see what happens :-P

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

That's true, none of us are entirely neutral, but I think a lot of us are fair-minded enough to cipher out most of the spin. For example, even as a Clinton supporter, I don't think it's fair to count MI at all. It's silly to use MI as evidence that Hillary has the lead in the popular vote. If people want to use MI for arguments like that, we have to give Obama all the "uncommitted" votes. I know her campaign's been trying to use that line, but it's too much spin, even for me.

by sricki on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

Let's rock this joint!

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:50 PM EST

Your timeframe removes me from any capacity (none / 0)

in judging as I will be at home helping with the spring planting then (it is after finals during our break in med school).

Also have you heard any news from the mods about a special thread...

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (2.00 / 1)

Sounds like a great idea. After the debate non-participants could write commentaries.

After the issues are decided, debaters could ask for assistance with talking points from their side, maybe via e-mail or some other semi-private source.

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

by LadyEagle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:41:58 PM EST

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

Excellent ideas. Throw 'em in the new diary, and rec it if you can. We need all the help we can get to get this thing off the ground.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put up or shut up- let's debate! *UPDATE* (none / 0)

No problem.

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

by LadyEagle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:52:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm willing to debate (none / 0)

Put me down on Hillary's side

by LDFan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:45:28 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.