Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
How do YOU rate who "wins" debates?
I'm just curious. Certainly, each man's spinsters/apologists will say their boy won - and would do so even if he pulled a Linda Blair and spewed pea soup and rotated his head 360 on stage. That's predictable.
But putting them aside, I've heard such different interpretations of who's "won" the debates - even from people who otherwise agree on the candidates - that it makes me wonder how people are calling fight, so to speak.
So what is "winning" to you? Is it content? Their ability to deliver that content? (Substance v. style?) How well they responded to their opponent's charges? How well they avoided getting side-tracked by their opponent's charges? Do you take into account what the "who won the debate" polls say? Or is the final test in the polling data on who people say they're vote for?
Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.