Presidential Debates

[Peter]

I suppose we better organise some debates at some point. When we have our VPs announced, they will probably want to debate also.

Personally I was thinking towards the end of this month, maybe one beginning 26 May, and then another in early June for the Presidential.

We will also need a moderator: Personally I nominate Ernest for the job since I think he's widely regarded as being able to be fair and impartial.

[True Democrat]

I think either Ernest or Joe Republic would be great to moderate the debates.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd be able to participate in a debate from May 26th - May 27th. The weekend following is Memorial Day Weekend here in the U.S. which equals the unofficial start to summer which equals this Presidential candidate will be down the shore.    An early June debate should be fine, too.

Then again, maybe none of this post will matter. If I do not receive the ACA nomination at our convention, I will not be in the race.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What format are you looking for in debates?

[Emsworth]

What format are you looking for in debates?

I would imagine that a question-response-six rebuttals format wouldn't work too well. Might I suggest a simple question-responses format?

[The Duke]

I am willing to moderate.

[Emsworth]

We could always have different moderators for different debates - Ernest for one, Ford for another, etc.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given the size of the field, how about the following?

Two seperate debates, one for the left and one for the right starting on May 26, with candidates allowed to choose which one of the two debates they are in.

Then two more simultaneous debates starting June 9, with the top 3 candidates (as determined by poll) in one debate and the others in the other?

This would keep the debate groups small enough to allow for candidate interaction.

[Emsworth]

Two seperate debates, one for the left and one for the right starting on May 26, with candidates allowed to choose which one of the two debates they are in.

I like this idea. It would be even more interesting to have a leftist conducting the "right" debate and a rightist doing the "left" debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classifying some candidates as "top" candidates would, in my opinion, unfairly damage the candidacies of the others.

Instead, may I propose a random distribution of candidates?

[Akno21]

That wouldn't work, with the right and left. Who is the left? Peter and who? Dibble is far-right econimically and King is a centrist.

[Emsworth]

That wouldn't work, with the right and left. Who is the left? Peter and who? Dibble is far-right econimically and King is a centrist.

Good point. Perhaps we should have two debates, each with an assortment of leftist, rightist, and centrist/other candidates, to make the arguments much more interesting. For example:

Debate 1
StatesRights
Bell
King
Phil

Debate 2
Hobbes
Supersoulty
Dibble

Alternatively, the candidates could simply be randomly distributed.

[Akno21]

That wouldn't work, with the right and left. Who is the left? Peter and who? Dibble is far-right econimically and King is a centrist.

Good point. Perhaps we should have two debates, each with an assortment of leftist, rightist, and centrist/other candidates, to make the arguments much more interesting. For example:

Debate 1
StatesRights
Bell
King
Phil

Debate 2
Hobbes
Supersoulty
Dibble

Alternatively, the candidates could simply be randomly distributed.

That's a bit too random for my tastes. The fairest way to do it is have at least one debate with everyone in it.

If we want to split up the candidates later, that's fine, but the first debate needs everyone. I also don't want to base anything off poll numbers for choosing who debates in a "top-level" debate, since the debates should be shaping the polls and not vice-versa. 

[King]

How about we base debate participation on a poll?  Debate 1 will have all 8 candidates, Debate 2 will have the top 5 finishers in a simple poll, and D3 will be just the two big contenders.

[Emsworth]

How about we base debate participation on a poll?  Debate 1 will have all 8 candidates, Debate 2 will have the top 5 finishers in a simple poll, and D3 will be just the two big contenders.

I thought there were only 7 candidates (Bell, Hobbes, King, Supersoulty, States, Dibble, Phil). Whom did I miss?

[King]

How about we base debate participation on a poll?  Debate 1 will have all 8 candidates, Debate 2 will have the top 5 finishers in a simple poll, and D3 will be just the two big contenders.

I thought there were only 7 candidates (Bell, Hobbes, King, Supersoulty, States, Dibble, Phil). Whom did I miss?

My mistake...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That wouldn't work, with the right and left. Who is the left? Peter and who? Dibble is far-right econimically and King is a centrist.

That’s why I proposed that the choice of which debate, left or right, be the candidate’s to make.  The very act of making that choice should help to illuminate what the candidate thinks of his own views.

[Colin]

Well it is my personal believe that we should have at least one debate with all candidates. We were able to accomplish this in October I don't see how we can't accomplish it now.

[Peter]

I am in favour of at least one and preferably two all candidates debate.

My preferred format would be something like this:

Ernest asks one general question to all candidates.

Ernest then asks two questions to each candidate - Whilst he's obviously free to ask whatever questions he likes, I suggest he uses suggestions from the public.

Candidates then get to ask two questions of two other candidates; They can reference anything from the debate or elsewhere in this.

Ernest then finishes with one general question and closing statements.

Ernest might need to proactively moderate to keep this structure solid however.

[skybridge]

It doesn't matter too much. The latest polls all show skybridge winning in a landslide.

[Peter]

Are any of the other candidates interested in a debate other than myself, Phil and King?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since I am a Vice Presidential candidate, I have decided that it wouldn't be proper for me to moderate the Presidential debates.  Therefore, I will of course hold one starting on the 26th.