What's the point of the debates?

[teen persuasion]

I've never paid much attention to debates before, maybe just watched casually to see what candidates had to say about issues, and generally see how they handled themselves vs the opponent.  The recent debate and Trump's presidency in general has me looking deeper at the structure, details, rules.

I keep hearing that the debate committee is considering changing the rules to prevent another debacle. The candidates agreed to the rules beforehand, and Trump doesn't want to agree to new rules. There were 90 interruptions, 71 by Trump.

Questions: Is the debate a competition, like sports, or games?
Is there a winner (as in other competitions)?
How is the winner decided?
Sports and games usually have detailed rules in an effort to promote fairness. What are the debate rules?
Sports and games have penalties for rule infractions. Are there any penalties in debates?
My sons play a variety of online multiplayer games, and have extended conversations about frequent changes to game rules or character strengths/skills/handicaps (buff/debuff) to rebalance a game. Are debate rules in flux like this, or is this discussion of changing rules a sea change in a mature competition, due to the disruption of Trump?


Looking at a larger picture, it feels like this debate was just the latest instance of Trump upending established norms by flouting the rules, especially where the rules have been enforced only by the participants' adherence to tradition.

Last thing I'm left cogitating - how to define winning? I usually think of winning as a positive term, but Trump seems to redefine winning to be "NOT losing" AND opponent "NOT winning". So the preferred MO is ruin opponent's chance of winning, and declare yourself winner by default. Or something like that.

[happyhoix]

In theory the debates allow the candidates to put forth their platforms and to challenge the other person’s platform.

Really they allow you to see how cogent the person is, how well they react under pressure, do they get their point across effectively, etc. since the Kennedy/Nixon debate, when Nixon was sweating and had a five o’clock shadow, it’s been a sort of beauty contest, too.

That was before Trump anyway. Since second grade Trump has understood winning to being the loudest, most aggressive person in the room. He hasn’t changed to fit the office. So now the debates are opportunities for Trump to shout down both the moderator and Biden then declare himself the winner- which he is, if you score him by his rules.

Probably pointless to have more debates, since Trump is refusing to change the rules - although I am looking forward to the VP debate.

[bean29]

Honestly, I don't know why DH and I even had it on, our vote is baked in, no chance of us changing our minds.  It was a waste of our time.

I don't think I will watch another one, but I might tune it just to see how much of a spectacle Trump makes of himself.

I wonder how many people were actually watching that actually have not decided yet who they will vote for.

imho, Trump's base, are not the kind of people who would tune it to a debate.  

[billisonboard]

The point of a presidential debate is to give voters information to use to make a decision for whom to vote. Talking heads use them as something to talk about and thus you get into all the questions in the OP. But all of that only matters as individuals choose to factor what is said into their decision making process. With that in mind, it doesn't matter the specifics of what happens. The candidates presented what they did. Voters need to use it as they see fit.

[thyme4change]

They made a lot more sense when there was 3 networks, and news was limited to maybe 90 minutes per day total - including local news. The newspaper could write the candidate's words, but the debate was able to show them talking, improvising and interacting with people. Now that we have a camera crew up the butts of the candidates and they show everything of even remote interest, it isn't as helpful.

[djAdvocate]

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

[teen persuasion]

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

A spoiler could just take over, make mayhem, so his opponent never gets to make an impression (or drags him into the mayhem).  Yes, spoiler shows himself to be making a mockery of the process, but the negative impression is also painted on the opponent as another participant in the failure.

The spoiler could also be effectively changing the game - despite making chaos, he could be interpreted as winning at all costs.

If the opponent engages, he gets dirty, too.  If he refuses to engage with the spoiler (because he's flouting rules), he is not participating.  Spoiler creating chaos is a lose-lose proposition for the opponent.

My game theory is rusty, it's been a long time since I learned about it when I tutored calc in college.

[teen persuasion]

Thinking about game theory a bit more - I didn't learn it in my calc classes (for science majors). I had to pick it up to help the business majors - it was in their watered down calc classes.

Just interesting where it was included in curriculum and overlooked. Though I'd bet it's been incorporated into current computer science more recently, considering how much CS is about the game industry now vs in the past.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?.

I believe they are working on that, tp.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2020 10:27:12 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Thinking about game theory a bit more - I didn't learn it in my calc classes (for science majors). I had to pick it up to help the business majors - it was in their watered down calc classes.

Just interesting where it was included in curriculum and overlooked. Though I'd bet it's been incorporated into current computer science more recently, considering how much CS is about the game industry now vs in the past.

I would think it would be very valuable for sociology and poly sci majors.

I didn't learn about it until Nice Guys Finish Last was published.

[Opti]

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

Debates should be about ideas IMO. How much to you really find out about the personality of a candidate in the artificial environment of a debate? 

[laterbloomer]

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

A spoiler could just take over, make mayhem, so his opponent never gets to make an impression (or drags him into the mayhem).  Yes, spoiler shows himself to be making a mockery of the process, but the negative impression is also painted on the opponent as another participant in the failure.

The spoiler could also be effectively changing the game - despite making chaos, he could be interpreted as winning at all costs.

If the opponent engages, he gets dirty, too.  If he refuses to engage with the spoiler (because he's flouting rules), he is not participating.  Spoiler creating chaos is a lose-lose proposition for the opponent.

My game theory is rusty, it's been a long time since I learned about it when I tutored calc in college.

The scoring on this game is very complex yet very simple. At some point in the future, the score card from each judge will be recorded, "weighted" according to rules of the larger game, and a winner will be declared. What happens on any particular "play" in the game doesn't determine a winner.

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 11:24:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

I don't know what "theory" you are basing this on. I know that I prefer to not have a President who engages in that type of behavior but I am only one voter. There are obviously other people who have a different preference.

[thyme4change]

People like that Trump is an ass. It gives them permission to be an ass.

[teen persuasion]

Oct 1, 2020 11:24:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

IKR?

That's what gets me comparing back to sports and games.  In sports there's usually some kind of penalty for breaking a rule - penalty box in hockey (leaving your team shorthanded for a time), foul shots in basketball, etc. It's either a handicap for you, or a (chance at) bonus for opponent, to put a cost on breaking the rule. Because breaking the rule gave you an advantage, tilting the playing field in your favor.

Without the rules, and penalties for breaking rules, you are reliant on good sportsmanship among participants, or refusing to compete with poor sports.

But Trump has consistently been flouting the traditionally accepted rules, perhaps unwritten, and his team has not pushed him back in line. We've been expecting him to be peer pressured back to normal behavior, but it hasn't happened. He's exploiting the lack of ENFORCEMENT of the "rules" we thought were accepted.

So, continuing the sports analogy, if one team has a rogue player that never is held to the rules, and his team refuses to rein him in (because it gives them an advantage) how does their opponent react? Take the high ground and continue to play by the rules? Can't beat 'em, join 'em? Reevaluate how to play the altered game? Refuse to play at all?

[laterbloomer]

Oct 1, 2020 11:34:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:24:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

I don't know what "theory" you are basing this on. I know that I prefer to not have a President who engages in that type of behavior but I am only one voter. There are obviously other people who have a different preference.

See, the way you start I think you're disagreeing with me. Then you go on to say the same thing I said in different words. 

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 11:56:01 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:34:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't know what "theory" you are basing this on. I know that I prefer to not have a President who engages in that type of behavior but I am only one voter. There are obviously other people who have a different preference.

See, the way you start I think you're disagreeing with me. Then you go on to say the same thing I said in different words. 

You used the words "theoretically" and "should" in a way which I totally disagree is appropriate here.

[laterbloomer]

Oct 1, 2020 12:06:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:56:01 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

See, the way you start I think you're disagreeing with me. Then you go on to say the same thing I said in different words. 

You used the words "theoretically" and "should" in a way which I totally disagree is appropriate here.

Theoretical - based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice. Since I was trying to say that the comment was based on thought and not how it actually worked out I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. "Should" is part of what the idea was, again don't really know what there is to disagree about.

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 11:55:06 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:24:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

IKR?

That's what gets me comparing back to sports and games.  In sports there's usually some kind of penalty for breaking a rule - penalty box in hockey (leaving your team shorthanded for a time), foul shots in basketball, etc. It's either a handicap for you, or a (chance at) bonus for opponent, to put a cost on breaking the rule. Because breaking the rule gave you an advantage, tilting the playing field in your favor.

Without the rules, and penalties for breaking rules, you are reliant on good sportsmanship among participants, or refusing to compete with poor sports.

But Trump has consistently been flouting the traditionally accepted rules, perhaps unwritten, and his team has not pushed him back in line. We've been expecting him to be peer pressured back to normal behavior, but it hasn't happened. He's exploiting the lack of ENFORCEMENT of the "rules" we thought were accepted.

So, continuing the sports analogy, if one team has a rogue player that never is held to the rules, and his team refuses to rein him in (because it gives them an advantage) how does their opponent react? Take the high ground and continue to play by the rules? Can't beat 'em, join 'em? Reevaluate how to play the altered game? Refuse to play at all?

The "game" isn't over. And it is up to each team to determine how they can win in the end.

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 12:12:07 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 1, 2020 12:06:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You used the words "theoretically" and "should" in a way which I totally disagree is appropriate here.

Theoretical - based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice. Since I was trying to say that the comment was based on thought and not how it actually worked out I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. "Should" is part of what the idea was, again don't really know what there is to disagree about.

You are offering your specfic thoughts on the topic and generalizing them to the general population

[laterbloomer]

Oct 1, 2020 12:15:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 1, 2020 12:12:07 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Theoretical - based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice. Since I was trying to say that the comment was based on thought and not how it actually worked out I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. "Should" is part of what the idea was, again don't really know what there is to disagree about.

You are offering your specfic thoughts on the topic and generalizing them to the general population

Holy cow bills, you're working hard to find something. I'm not claiming everyone believes that theory, however I am not the only person that holds that theory. It's A theory, not the only theory. I even made the point that it's not how it played out in practice. 

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 12:29:21 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 1, 2020 12:15:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You are offering your specfic thoughts on the topic and generalizing them to the general population

Holy cow bills, you're working hard to find something. I'm not claiming everyone believes that theory, however I am not the only person that holds that theory. It's A theory, not the only theory. I even made the point that it's not how it played out in practice. 

I am working hard on this. I have a different take on the whole debate issue.

[teen persuasion]

Oct 1, 2020 11:30:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 1, 2020 10:21:17 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

If this is the goal, should the rules be changed to prevent one opponent from completely disrupting the entire event?

A spoiler could just take over, make mayhem, so his opponent never gets to make an impression (or drags him into the mayhem).  Yes, spoiler shows himself to be making a mockery of the process, but the negative impression is also painted on the opponent as another participant in the failure.

The spoiler could also be effectively changing the game - despite making chaos, he could be interpreted as winning at all costs.

If the opponent engages, he gets dirty, too.  If he refuses to engage with the spoiler (because he's flouting rules), he is not participating.  Spoiler creating chaos is a lose-lose proposition for the opponent.

My game theory is rusty, it's been a long time since I learned about it when I tutored calc in college.

The scoring on this game is very complex yet very simple. At some point in the future, the score card from each judge will be recorded, "weighted" according to rules of the larger game, and a winner will be declared. What happens on any particular "play" in the game doesn't determine a winner.

So from this, and your exchanges with Later, I gather that you are viewing the "game" as the election.  I'm looking at the debate as one discrete game in a diverse season.  Different events in the season have different rules, and different focuses.  You don't apply the same tactics in different events, you make sure to follow the applicable rules in EACH event.  (Now I'm thinking Track events, very diverse).

[billisonboard]

Oct 1, 2020 12:54:11 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:30:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The scoring on this game is very complex yet very simple. At some point in the future, the score card from each judge will be recorded, "weighted" according to rules of the larger game, and a winner will be declared. What happens on any particular "play" in the game doesn't determine a winner.

So from this, and your exchanges with Later, I gather that you are viewing the "game" as the election.  I'm looking at the debate as one discrete game in a diverse season.  Different events in the season have different rules, and different focuses.  You don't apply the same tactics in different events, you make sure to follow the applicable rules in EACH event.  (Now I'm thinking Track events, very diverse).

In a track meet, a team gains points from each event and in the final calculation those points are totaled to determine a winner. Here is how that might look here:

Better convention speech: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ..,? goes to Candidate A
Better debate 1: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
Better debate 2: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
Better debate 3: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
More Electoral votes: 1 point, as determined by the voters, for Candidate B

Score Candidate A 4, Candidate B 1. And the winner is?

[Deleted]

Debates have been conducting assuming a major party would put forward someone that would at least have a minimum level of common decency and doesn't behave like a toddler.

That was an incorrect assumption and now you have to put in guardrails to keep a candidate from blowing the whole thing up with a ranting temper tantrum.

From the founding fathers to party elders of yesteryear, nobody thought the populous was capable of putting up a candidate like Trump.

If I'm Biden though you're kinda stuck going through this two more times because you signed up for the rules and guardrails that allow Trump to felch the rules, it is always poor form to look like you are whining to the referee.

I see debates as winning or losing, the first televised one in 60 probably gave Kennedy the election because Nixon looked and performed horrifically.  I think Trump won the election in 16 after his performance in St Louis after the Access Hollywood scandal.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2020 11:20:59 GMT -5 Opti said:

Oct 1, 2020 9:55:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one of the commentators said that the debate was useful in the sense that it allows us to see the personalities of these two men- to judge their temperament. if this is what the debates are about, it really doesn't matter what questions are asked.

Debates should be about ideas IMO. How much to you really find out about the personality of a candidate in the artificial environment of a debate? 

you can learn a bit about their acuity, their ability to instantly respond to adversity, their stamina, their speaking ability, and to a smaller degree, what they care about. this stuff matters.

I think that the Trump campaign made a mistake having CW host it.  he is a trusted voice among conservatives, and guaranteed that Trump supporters would be watching. because they single source their news, they really never get to hear ANYTHING from sources other than FOX, and Biden is not a FOX puppet. so, for some of them, this is their first exposure to oppositional opinion, and it appears to have had an impact on some of them.

at least that is what the polling data APPEARS to say.

[Tennesseer]

To see the makeup job on trump's face?  

Reporters to trump as he enters the debate area:  "Whose makeup are you wearing?"


Other than that, I don't know anymore.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2020 11:55:06 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Oct 1, 2020 11:24:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Theoretically that kind of behaviour should cost the candidate the election as nobody would vote for him. So far that hasn't proven to be true.

IKR?

That's what gets me comparing back to sports and games.  In sports there's usually some kind of penalty for breaking a rule - penalty box in hockey (leaving your team shorthanded for a time), foul shots in basketball, etc. It's either a handicap for you, or a (chance at) bonus for opponent, to put a cost on breaking the rule. Because breaking the rule gave you an advantage, tilting the playing field in your favor.

Without the rules, and penalties for breaking rules, you are reliant on good sportsmanship among participants, or refusing to compete with poor sports.

But Trump has consistently been flouting the traditionally accepted rules, perhaps unwritten, and his team has not pushed him back in line. We've been expecting him to be peer pressured back to normal behavior, but it hasn't happened. He's exploiting the lack of ENFORCEMENT of the "rules" we thought were accepted.

So, continuing the sports analogy, if one team has a rogue player that never is held to the rules, and his team refuses to rein him in (because it gives them an advantage) how does their opponent react? Take the high ground and continue to play by the rules? Can't beat 'em, join 'em? Reevaluate how to play the altered game? Refuse to play at all?

I mentioned this in an earlier discussion.

Trump is a classic "cheat".  he finds FORGIVING systems, and basically exploits them to his advantage.

there is a good game theory for combatting this.  it is the same one I use on the boards (and I have to say, it works brilliantly, here).  you go in with a TRUSTING attitude.  and you continue TRUSTING (cooperating) until your opponent cheats (or breaks the rules, in games which are not zero sum), THEN you have an UNTRUSTING attitude until the cheater plays the game fairly.

we need to stop trusting Trump and the processes he is involved in.  he will ONLY take advantage of that, because that is ALL he knows how to do.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2020 13:46:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 1, 2020 12:54:11 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

So from this, and your exchanges with Later, I gather that you are viewing the "game" as the election.  I'm looking at the debate as one discrete game in a diverse season.  Different events in the season have different rules, and different focuses.  You don't apply the same tactics in different events, you make sure to follow the applicable rules in EACH event.  (Now I'm thinking Track events, very diverse).

In a track meet, a team gains points from each event and in the final calculation those points are totaled to determine a winner. Here is how that might look here:

Better convention speech: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ..,? goes to Candidate A
Better debate 1: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
Better debate 2: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
Better debate 3: 1 point, as determined by poll? talking heads? ...?, to Candidate A
More Electoral votes: 1 point, as determined by the voters, for Candidate B

Score Candidate A 4, Candidate B 1. And the winner is?

depends on the game.

I try not to measure myself by arbitrary standards of performance, as an example.  if I "lose" a track meet, but I BEAT my personal best, that is a victory for me.  the fact that someone is better than me doesn't matter one stitch to me.  that is expected.  that is life.  there can only be one "best".  that doesn't make everyone else a loser, IN MY OPINION.