Skip to main content

to characterize the political circuses with which we have lately been cursed is largely a misnomer.

I debated formally in both high school and college.  Under the protocols for formal debate, about 75-80 percent of the discussions that have occurred in the Republican debates would be deemed irrelevant.  The Democratic debates score better than that (i.e. less irrelevancy as to topics), but still fall short of the rules.  The primary difference between the two is the distracting presence of the pugnacious, blithering, boorish Donald Trump, whose "contributions," more often than not, rely on bald unexplicated assertions and sheer bluster.  His frequent crudity further contaminates the process.  Ted Cruz, who was a champion debater in college, shows that he understands what debate is actually about and comes armed with powerful information that often deflates the Trumpster, who then tries to smokescreen himself away from the embarrassment that he so richly deserves.  I do not like Cruz's politics, but I respect his demonstrated competence in actual debate. 

Last edited by Contendahh
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

budsfarm posted:
giftedamateur posted:

I doubt what you did was debate. You don't seem capable of debating. Name calling and trying to discredit and belittle people like you do is NOT debate.

I'll bet it was funny.

___

It was not "funny."  It was a carefully structured activity, constrained by well-defined criteria used to judge winners and losers.  I and my debate partners won far more times than we lost. So it matters not to me what you, gifted amateur or others on this forum think about the matter, since you bring to the matter a set of biases that typically impel you to ignorant criticism..

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×