Future Debate Proposal

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

How about this.

Each candidate gets to pick the moderator that asks questions to the opposing candidate.

The moderator is able to ask 1 follow up per question if the candidate evades answering.

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

Discuss.

 

[StormHawk42]

Sounds good in theory.

Execution I don’t think would be very good. And it would become more of a focus on the moderators instead of the candidates.

 

[SiouxCyty]

How about this.

Each candidate gets to pick the moderator that asks questions to the opposing candidate.

The moderator is able to ask 1 follow up per question if the candidate evades answering.

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

Discuss.

That just makes too much common sense. Why it will never happen.

 

[millah_22]

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

I dont think anyone is going to tune in to the end for a fact checking segment.

I think you have 1 segment, then commercial, then when they come back from commercial they do a fact checking follow up for that segment, then do another commercial break.

1. Economy
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

2. Foreign Affairs
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

3. Domestic social issues
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Sounds good in theory.

Execution I don’t think would be very good. And it would become more of a focus on the moderators instead of the candidates.

Disagree...they'd be limited to 1 follow up and no real time fact checking. The focus would be on the candidates.

Fact checking would come at the end of the debate.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

That just makes too much common sense. Why it will never happen.

It'd take the "bias" argument out of the equation. Both candidates would be in a adversarial situation which I think is good overall. They should be pressed and asked difficult questions.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How about this.

Each candidate gets to pick the moderator that asks questions to the opposing candidate.

The moderator is able to ask 1 follow up per question if the candidate evades answering.

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

Discuss.

Adjust it a bit. I believe the questions are asked of both so just have 2 moderators and allow them to take turns asking questions.

I would say the moderators need to be actual journalists not opinion people. These have to be people who journalistically check their sources and meet the standards of journalism.

We don't need Hannity or Maddow up there.

Honestly maybe we could do away with TV personalities and get a journalist from the WSJ and the Washington Post.

 

[sober_teacher]

Disagree...they'd be limited to 1 follow up and no real time fact checking. The focus would be on the candidates.

Fact checking would come at the end of the debate.

No one would stick around for the fact-checking.

Trump got fact-checked because he told a number of absolute whoppers, I didn’t have an issue with the ones he got called out on.

Complaints about the moderators here also ignore that Trump got several more minutes of speaking time than Harris; and that she didn’t say anything near the level of the ones that trump got called out for.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I dont think anyone is going to tune in to the end for a fact checking segment.

I think you have 1 segment, then commercial, then when they come back from commercial they do a fact checking follow up for that segment, then do another commercial break.

1. Economy
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

2. Foreign Affairs
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

3. Domestic social issues
Commerial
Fact Check
Commercial

Reasonable proposal.,,,

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

Im curious when they started fact checking during debates.

 

[StormHawk42]

Disagree...they'd be limited to 1 follow up and no real time fact checking. The focus would be on the candidates.

Fact checking would come at the end of the debate.

Sure but even in their 1 question, clearly biased moderators can tweak a question while throwing in fluff.

Hannity to Harris: “So you allegedly gave blowjobs to continue building your career. What would you say to young women looking who are struggling to get started in this economy?”

Extreme example but I think you get the gist. Maddow could do the same thing to Trump.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Adjust it a bit. I believe the questions are asked of both so just have 2 moderators and allow them to take turns asking questions.

I would say the moderators need to be actual journalists not opinion people. These have to be people who journalistically check their sources and meet the standards of journalism.

We don't need Hannity or Maddow up there.

Honestly maybe we could do away with TV personalities and get a journalist from the WSJ and the Washington Post.

Reasonable. I'd just add that all the questions aren't the same...there are questions that would be specific to each candidate. Past actions and policies to be specific.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Sure but even in their 1 question, clearly biased moderators can tweak a question while throwing in fluff.

Hannity to Harris: “So you allegedly gave blowjobs to continue building your career. What would you say to young women looking who are struggling to get started in this economy?”

Extreme example but I think you get the gist. Maddow could do the same thing to Trump.

That's why we need journalists and not opinion people up there.

Journalist's have credibility to worry about and can't just make shit up without taking a career hit.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

No one would stick around for the fact-checking.

Trump got fact-checked because he told a number of absolute whoppers, I didn’t have an issue with the ones he got called out on.

Complaints about the moderators here also ignore that Trump got several more minutes of speaking time than Harris; and that she didn’t say anything near the level of the ones that trump got called out for.

Harris wasn't asked one follow up even though she avoided answering a couple questions. The first amongst them...

She could have been "fact checked" a couple times but wasn't.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Reasonable. I'd just add that all the questions aren't the same...there are questions that would be specific to each candidate. Past actions and policies to be specific.

That's fair. But there absolutely has to be a role about no opinion people, real journalists only. Otherwise you get 2 opinion people up there who don't have to worry about having a reputation and the whole thing becomes even more of a shit show than it was before.

 

[artradley]

How about this.

Each candidate gets to pick the moderator that asks questions to the opposing candidate.

The moderator is able to ask 1 follow up per question if the candidate evades answering.

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

Discuss.

No way in the world Trump agrees to anything with fact-checking as part of the procedure. Because, you know, the fact-checkers are lying.

 

[sober_teacher]

Harris wasn't asked one follow up even though she avoided answering a couple questions. The first amongst them...

She could have been "fact checked" a couple times but wasn't.

They followed up with her several times, she was just better at evading the question than Trump. Not to mention at least twice where they ignored her request to respond to things Trump said.

Sure she could have been fact-checked. That could happen at any debate. But nothing she got wrong came close to the whoppers that Trump got fact-checked on, like the migrants eating dogs thing.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Sure but even in their 1 question, clearly biased moderators can tweak a question while throwing in fluff.

Hannity to Harris: “So you allegedly gave blowjobs to continue building your career. What would you say to young women looking who are struggling to get started in this economy?”

Extreme example but I think you get the gist. Maddow could do the same thing to Trump.

Treat it like a jury pool. Each side gets some vetoes....get rid of the Hannity's and Maddow's that way. Ultimately the candidates can turn down the debate if they don't like who's chosen....but they have to defend the decision.

Lets say Trump ends up choosing Brett Baier and Harris Lester Holt. Good luck bailing on that by either candidate.

 

[StormHawk42]

Treat it like a jury pool. Each side gets some vetoes....get rid of the Hannity's and Maddow's that way. Ultimately the candidates can turn down the debate if they don't like who's chosen....but they have to defend the decision.

Lets say Trump ends up choosing Brett Baier and Harris Lester Holt. Good luck bailing on that by either candidate.

Don’t hate the idea but unlikely to be a thing in this cycle

 

[FAUlty Gator]

How about this.

Each candidate gets to pick the moderator that asks questions to the opposing candidate.

The moderator is able to ask 1 follow up per question if the candidate evades answering.

At the end of the debate there is a "fact checking" segment.

Discuss.

I actually heard a decent idea as well. Each candidate picks a surrogate they feel can represent their views on the issues and they debate one another purely on policy.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Why can’t we have a family feud buzzer type of thing? Independent control of the buzzer. Trump says,”in Ohio immigrants are eating “bzzzzz” cats and dogs “bzzzzzz”. They are eating family pets “bzzzzz”. I think it would be cool.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

They followed up with her several times, she was just better at evading the question than Trump. Not to mention at least twice where they ignored her request to respond to things Trump said.

Sure she could have been fact-checked. That could happen at any debate. But nothing she got wrong came close to the whoppers that Trump got fact-checked on, like the migrants eating dogs thing.

Can you link a "follow up" to her not answering a question? I sure didn't see one.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Don’t hate the idea but unlikely to be a thing in this cycle

If I was a R I'd demand it after this cycle. But you're correct.

 

[Hendy hawk]

Add to it that you get 30 seconds to answer a question. After that the mic is shut down.
That way said candidate cannot ramble onto other useless things like people eating cats and dogs in Ohio.

 

[QChawks]

how about end the debates altogether

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Treat it like a jury pool. Each side gets some vetoes....get rid of the Hannity's and Maddow's that way. Ultimately the candidates can turn down the debate if they don't like who's chosen....but they have to defend the decision.

Lets say Trump ends up choosing Brett Baier and Harris Lester Holt. Good luck bailing on that by either candidate.

I don't think the vetos would work because there is no shortage of opinion people out there. What we have a shortage of are real journalists.

I'm not sure how you could write this rule but that's what we needs is real journalists with real reputations on the line.

 

[Dorrman]

 

[Huey Grey]

This debate structure would be ripe for abuse. Trump wouldn't even select a journalist. He would select some jackass loyalist, like his son, to demand to know why Harris is a commie Marxist who will cause WWIII.

 

[MuscoHawk]

Watching Hannity and Maddow moderate the next debate would be incredible. I don’t care what side you’re on, it would be awesome.

One thing I would add — there needs to be some sort of rule about answering the damn question. I don’t know how you enforce it but I’m so tired of seeing Trump completely avoid the question and go off on an unrelated tangent.

 

[sober_teacher]

Can you link a "follow up" to her not answering a question? I sure didn't see one.

I didn’t record the debate so no I can’t give a link.

Add to it that you get 30 seconds to answer a question. After that the mic is shut down.
That way said candidate cannot ramble onto other useless things like people eating cats and dogs in Ohio.

They got 2 minutes to answer, 1 min to respond.

 

[funksouljon]

It's a debate. It's up to the opposing debater to refute what the other person said.

It's not up to the moderator to inject themselves into the debate.

The post debate analysis is the time for that for the media IMO.

The moderators job is to hold the debaters to the rules of the debate and ask questions...not to fact check.

Im curious about your change in opinion on this topic? See above for your position in your own thread.

Is this due to the volume of lies NEEDING to be fact checked because we already called that out which you disagreed with or the perceived "imbalance"? What is the right ratio of lies to checks?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Im curious about your change in opinion on this topic? See above for your position in your own thread.

Is this due to the volume of lies NEEDING to be fact checked because we already called that out which you disagreed with or the perceived "imbalance"? What is the right ratio of lies to checks?

I've said Trump got his doors blown off and failed in the debate thread.

There's no change...just would have like to see Harris pressed a couple times but wasn't.

 

[OutbackBowl2017]

I’d love to see a question asked and the answer has to deal with that topic asked. If not, you get a buzzer and move on to the other candidate. No talking about another topic not even related to the question that they both did the other night.

 

[funksouljon]

I've said Trump got his doors blown off and failed in the debate thread.

There's no change...just would have like to see Harris pressed a couple times but wasn't.

My comment above you responded to had NOTHING to do with the results of the debate. I asked why this thread now seems to be a change in heart from your previous thread. You are now offering a debate approach that fact checks each person, where as before you said...
"It's not up to the moderator to inject themselves into the debate. <with fact checks>"

I very clearly asked you WHY your opinion changed, which it clearly has. And you sort of answered that you would have liked Harris fact checked too,. And my question still remains, what is the lie / fact check ratio is ideal? Trump lied 33 times, was fact checked 6? times, so a 5.5 ratio. Meaning she would need to tell 5.5 lies before she was checked with the same scrutiny. ?


And for the record, I do think that a fact checker should be part, the execution would be tricky, but not impossible.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

My comment above you responded to had NOTHING to do with the results of the debate. I asked why this thread now seems to be a change in heart from your previous thread. You are now offering a debate approach that fact checks each person, where as before you said...
"It's not up to the moderator to inject themselves into the debate. <with fact checks>"

I very clearly asked you WHY your opinion changed, which it clearly has. And you sort of answered that you would have liked Harris fact checked too,. And my question still remains, what is the lie / fact check ratio is ideal? Trump lied 33 times, was fact checked 6? times, so a 5.5 ratio. Meaning she would need to tell 5.5 lies before she was checked with the same scrutiny. ?


And for the record, I do think that a fact checker should be part, the execution would be tricky, but not impossible.

The debate moderators were extremely biased. I think my proposal would rectify that.

I also said in the debate thread that Harris didn't need the help...she could have wrecked him without it cuz he took the bait every time.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[funksouljon]

The debate moderators were extremely biased. I think my proposal would rectify that.

I also said in the debate thread that Harris didn't need the help...she could have wrecked him without it cuz he took the bait every time.

Feel free to disagree.

So how were they biased? By fact checking him only? What would the right lie to check ratio be? They wouldn't be able to check every lie, so how many trigger a check?

I not disagreeing, I am asking you some questions. I am disagreeing with you on the fact that your position has now flipflopped. But, IMO, you have flipflopped to the correct position.

 

[sober_teacher]

The debate moderators were extremely biased. I think my proposal would rectify that.

I also said in the debate thread that Harris didn't need the help...she could have wrecked him without it cuz he took the bait every time.

Feel free to disagree.

I disagree that they were “extremely biased”.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I disagree that they were “extremely biased”.

Fair enough. Disagree with your disagree

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The debate moderators were extremely biased. I think my proposal would rectify that.

I also said in the debate thread that Harris didn't need the help...she could have wrecked him without it cuz he took the bait every time.

Feel free to disagree.

I don't think they were biased but I do think your proposal if we got real journalists would eliminated the ability of others to claim it was biased.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I don't think they were biased but I do think your proposal if we got real journalists would eliminated the ability of others to claim it was biased.

fair enough