Lets Rate the Debate!

[Ranting Randy]

We The People Need to Rate the Debate (The short version, a longer version may be released in a week or so)

Today, Presidential “Debates” are primarily scripted political theater and are judged by entertainment standards rather than the strength of the policies or the arguments supporting them. In this context, people with little knowledge of debates think a “gotcha” moment or something humorous is important, when actually these comments should have no impact on how a policy or argument is evaluated.

When watching the debate, let’s try a simple debate rating program where “we the people” can have something substantial to say after the debate. We can say that candidate X scored 3 points and candidate Y scored -2 points on immigration. We can point to statements where we awarded or deducted points and others can review our thinking. We may even choose to evaluate a transcript of the debate in order to do a detailed analysis. This is a system which encourages that “we the people” control the post debate narrative, rather than listening to the talking heads who are promoting a political stance.

Below is my proposed debate scoring system. When a candidate talks you can add or subtract points for the following reasons.

Scoring:
Add 1 Point for the Following:

Award 1 Point – Thoughts are organized and presented clearly

Award 1 Point – Point was supported with facts, evidence, examples, etc.

Award 1 Point – Persuasion- Did the candidate make statements that were persuasive?

Award 1 Point – Clearly and accurately criticizing the other’s policy weaknesses


Subtract 1 Point for the Following

Subtract 1 Point - For each lie or significant inaccuracy

Subtract 1 Point -For failure to answer the question

Subtract 1 Point - For personal attacks on the opponent

Subtract 1 Point - For repeated interruptions of the opponent’s time

Subtract 1 Point- Each time a false claim is repeated

Award Zero Points for the following:

0 Points – Zingers, jokes, wisecracks, comedy

Debate Rating Example:
When each candidate talks about a topic, such as immigration, you might rate the following statements in the following way.
-1) Trump claims that immigrants living in the U.S. were mostly violent criminals
-1) Trump claims that violent immigrants had “taken over sections” of the state of Colorado
- 1) Trump claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of the country.”
+1 Harris explains that Trump stopped a bipartisan immigration bill
+ 1 Harris claims that the Chips Act is bringing back manufacturing to the United States
Total -3 Trump, +2 Harris

By using this process, we may be taking the first step in once again hosting actual debates that discuss the merits of policy, rather than the entertainment based fluff we call a Presidential Debate today.

The rules for all debates should be the same, through out all campaigns. If a Candidate X refuses to participate in a debate, Candidate Y should be given ½ the total debate time, uninterrupted, to explain his or her policies and reasoning. Candidate X’s empty chair should be shown in split screen through out the debate.

I am tired of the nonsense that is served to us as a Presidential Debate and it is up to those of us who know something is wrong, to provide suggestions as to how a debate could be more fairly evaluated.

If you choose to try this scoring system, please write back and share your results. Also, any suggestions to modify the scoring system will be welcomed as well.

[scipan]

1. I like it. Man, he'd be minus eleventy thousand,

although I think Kamala will get some personal attacks in.

[royable]

2. Should you take into account failure to answer questions that are stupid, based on underlying innacuracies or falsehoods

or based on opposing party's talking points?

What about softballs from non-neutral questioners?

Gotta be ready for the biased right-wing media.

[ancianita]

3. Good point. Rating can also include moderators and their questions.

Give 1 point to a candidate who restates then improves the moderator's question, then answers it per the prior criteria.