Should Candidates For Office Have To Engage In A Public Debate?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2010 2:35 AM GMT
    I was just looking at HuffPost and they have a list of 24! contests nationwide where one of the candidates will not submit to a public debate with their opponent.

    From what I can tell, those who are refusing to debate are either very wealthy and self-financing their campaigns, or are incumbents with big war chests. Instead of engaging in a debate, they are just pouring money into negative ads. I think the voters have a right to see these candidates in the hot seat.

    I think this is horrifying and I wouldn't vote for any of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2010 2:46 AM GMT
    Isn't that just regular politics? If you're winning in the polls, why open your mouth and prove yourself an idiot? There's no more neutral ground (some of them won't debate on Fox, understandably). How can you debate somebody when you don't have a common lexicon with him, if statistics can't define words like they used to? (e.g. being wealthy) So they're just using ads to preach to the choir and confirm the biases of those who want to vote anyway.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9225

    Sep 12, 2010 7:11 AM GMT
    I think that debates used to be a good idea, a long time ago.
    But, candidates learned how to act.
    And, they learned to hold pretend town hall meetings where they packed the audience with no one but their most staunch supporters.
    Moderators learned how to ask "gotcha" questions.
    And, except for the always entertaining Palin melt downs, I feel that the debates no longer serve any purpose.