2007-09-24 20:12:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
my arguments is most of them are forced to make promises that they can't commit to just so that they would have a good impression during the debate, and it usually ends up being between a democrat and a republican which turns into a competition rather than an idea to search for a president that would be to the best interest of the country. So basically we are left with a conqueror who wants to claim things like a victory in a debate rather than a man who seeks to cultivate what is precious and those that he believes is right.
2007-09-24 20:27:17 · update #1
That's like asking if football tryouts are really necessary when selecting players? Debating is what we pay our politicians to do. Don't you want to see them in action before you give them a four year contract?
2007-09-24 20:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they serve any purpose at all, especially this early in the process with 12 people standing at 12 podiums. Nobody gets to say very much, all of them have well-practiced 20-second answers for any question.
Later, when there are only two or three candidates, debates are more valuable, but they're still only a chance to see the candidates. Interviews would be better.
Think back on the debates you've seen in past election years. Think of the issues that were discussed--if you can even remember any. NONE of those issues were important after the election. NONE of the proposals made by candidates during the debates survived after the election.
Remember Kennedy and Nixon arguing about Quemoy and Matsu? (Well, okay, you'd have to be pretty old.) Remember GHW Bush's idea to house homeless people in abandoned military bases? Or GW Bush's dislike of 'nation building'?
2007-09-24 20:26:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there are no debates the opinions are formed on the basis of hearsay or from what others have said about the different candidates. The debates provide an occasion to gauge them first hand.
Is it possible that the candidates prepare and distribute DVDs (for free or at low costs) on their perceptions of the different priority issues confronting the nation and the strategies they plan to approach and solve the problems/ achieve the goals? These ( plus hard copies)can also become the authentic documents showing the pre - election promises of different candidates.
2007-09-25 02:54:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Debates are like a job interview. A candidate may present herself well, or not. A candidate may say something stupid, or not.
Of course you're not going to see the whole of a person, but it allows the American people to "interview" for the greatest positions in the land. :)
2007-09-24 20:16:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we haven't had good debates in over 20 years. if they don't have more than 5 minutes to discuss the topics , its just another press conference
with more time we can find out , by them really laying out there plan. too many candidates in a debate is a mislead-er. if it would be one or two topics, there would be enough time for them to have to cover the subjects , yes and no answers to how our country will be lead , are a disservice to us and America.
2007-09-24 21:14:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Everybody in the debates is a politician.
And I don't think the majority of the populous listens, or even knows how to pick a good president.
2007-09-24 20:23:12 · answer #6 · answered by bahbdorje 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not if the last four presidents are any indication.
2007-09-24 20:25:13 · answer #7 · answered by Thomas A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋