All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
Honestly, a Joe Rogan interview would have more value than the existing format. Two hours of people talking about whatever they want, and then the internet can fact check it all.
Sean Hannity would be a better moderator than any mainstream network anchor, you don't even have to go to a guy like Kirk or Posobiec or Tucker or Joe Rogan.
It was a mistake on their part to say they weren’t going to fact check when they did it anyway and then got called on it so hard they had to cut his mic.
It was before my time but i have seen videos of previous political candidate debates, including the presidency where they just talked about a topic for as long as needed, with each member had a rebuttal or counter point. it was civil and there were no moderators cutting off the mic or cutting the discussion short.
People who are already hardcore in either the left or right camps aren't going to be swayed to change their vote no matter what. Thus, the only votes that are up for grabs are the largely disinterested masses in the middle.
The people in the middle aren't the sorts of people that are going to sit down and watch a debate, much less the Vice Presidential debate. They aren't the sorts of people that are going to go investigate what actually happened. All they are going to hear about this is what they might bumble into in a 10 second clip from the media, what they might happen upon in some front page reddit sub, etc. When that happens, who is going to be the one that was in charge of writing that narrative, and what will it be?
The point is the same as always. The right has almost zero power to reach anyone not already on the right. The left has near total control over what the idiotic/disinterested masses in the middle stumble into during the business of going about their day. Thus - once again, the same as always - the left does whatever it wants to generate something - anything - that allows them to spin up a bunch of clips, articles, whatever that they can blast the public with, and hopefully set the narrative, and what is the narrative that these people will happen upon? "JD Vance was upset that he lied, and they wouldn't let him get away with it!!!"
It doesn't matter if Vance was right. It doesn't matter that the leftist moderators broke the rules they agreed to.
None of the people in the middle (or, more accurately, I guess, - a far greater portion of the people in the middle) are going to hear that. They're only going to hear how the left spun it. That's why they do it. The left has the ability to have a constant dark cloud hanging over anyone not in their camp.
Reddit is a strong example of why you don't always take the time to look at how your enemies talk, with r/Politics being one of the biggest progressive Marxist cancer centers on the Internet. Some are so unhinged that looking only a few sentences of their line-of-thought is enough to shut a critically-thinking brain down.
It’s still a front page r/popular sub. Even if the disinterested masses don’t take the time to actually read the article/comments, millions of those people scroll past it, see the ridiculous headline, and have the narrative colored by it.
Blasting the world with endless propaganda has an effect.
So it's clear the media is going to biasly "fact check" every debate now. They need either a new format or Republicans need to stop doing them.
challenge them to a debate without moderators.
put the mics on timers that rigidly enforce equal speaking times. deliver the prompts through text.
are the flaws with this method? yes but it's much better than the 2 minutes hate we've currently got
All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
Fucking internet bloodsports would be better than this.
Nah, Republicans need to demand debates with "moderators" that favor them. I'd love to see Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiac moderate one of these.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
Damn, that’s a good idea.
Honestly, a Joe Rogan interview would have more value than the existing format. Two hours of people talking about whatever they want, and then the internet can fact check it all.
Sean Hannity would be a better moderator than any mainstream network anchor, you don't even have to go to a guy like Kirk or Posobiec or Tucker or Joe Rogan.
It was a mistake on their part to say they weren’t going to fact check when they did it anyway and then got called on it so hard they had to cut his mic.
It was before my time but i have seen videos of previous political candidate debates, including the presidency where they just talked about a topic for as long as needed, with each member had a rebuttal or counter point. it was civil and there were no moderators cutting off the mic or cutting the discussion short.
They did it to ron paul lol. An "accident" that only occurs for him. Now its on purpose. Gg.
Ross Perot and Ron Paul are the presidents we should have had in the last 20 years.
They do it because it works.
Look at how this one is playing out:
People who are already hardcore in either the left or right camps aren't going to be swayed to change their vote no matter what. Thus, the only votes that are up for grabs are the largely disinterested masses in the middle.
The people in the middle aren't the sorts of people that are going to sit down and watch a debate, much less the Vice Presidential debate. They aren't the sorts of people that are going to go investigate what actually happened. All they are going to hear about this is what they might bumble into in a 10 second clip from the media, what they might happen upon in some front page reddit sub, etc. When that happens, who is going to be the one that was in charge of writing that narrative, and what will it be?
Oh, stuff like this:
and this:
And on, and on, and on.
The point is the same as always. The right has almost zero power to reach anyone not already on the right. The left has near total control over what the idiotic/disinterested masses in the middle stumble into during the business of going about their day. Thus - once again, the same as always - the left does whatever it wants to generate something - anything - that allows them to spin up a bunch of clips, articles, whatever that they can blast the public with, and hopefully set the narrative, and what is the narrative that these people will happen upon? "JD Vance was upset that he lied, and they wouldn't let him get away with it!!!"
It doesn't matter if Vance was right. It doesn't matter that the leftist moderators broke the rules they agreed to. None of the people in the middle (or, more accurately, I guess, - a far greater portion of the people in the middle) are going to hear that. They're only going to hear how the left spun it. That's why they do it. The left has the ability to have a constant dark cloud hanging over anyone not in their camp.
Reddit is a strong example of why you don't always take the time to look at how your enemies talk, with r/Politics being one of the biggest progressive Marxist cancer centers on the Internet. Some are so unhinged that looking only a few sentences of their line-of-thought is enough to shut a critically-thinking brain down.
It’s still a front page r/popular sub. Even if the disinterested masses don’t take the time to actually read the article/comments, millions of those people scroll past it, see the ridiculous headline, and have the narrative colored by it.
Blasting the world with endless propaganda has an effect.