Wow, I'm amazed that a thread hasn't been made on this topic yet. Everyone did watch the debate tonight...right? :)
I thought both sides did a decent job, under the circumstances and format of the debate, of arguing their points across. It is almost certain that Kerry will benefit from this debate in the polls, He remained poised, diligent, and informed, a contrast from the weak and ineffectual "portrayal" that the Bush campaign has been trying to depict. I thought that both sides were relatively predictable in their points, Bush being more so. I do think that Kerry could have done a better job in clarifying and defending against the remarks and statements that Bush brought up.
[edit]if a mod could correct the spelling error in the poll, thanks
Bush got schooled tonight.
He was unorganized, all over the place, and even stumped himself with his thoughts. Kerry is the obvious winner of tonight.
Bush provided a well rehersed point of view. No doubt he's been practicing intensly exactly what to say in some white house speechwriter's words.
But if there was an angle his helpers hadn't perceived, he proved himself to be a complete dumbass.
I have to say I felt sorry for him in a cringing way.
Not sorry enough to reelect an utter idiot into power though.
The general opinion seems to be that it was pretty close, but kerry might have just come out on top. I think alot of that has to do with the fact people didn't have high expectations of kerry to start with though. I guess the challenger also has more to gain from the exposure than the current president.
The general feeling seems to be it was the bush body language when not talking that was his weakest point.
THe current poll on this page almost exactly matches (precentage wise) the poll on the BBC web site. Most kerry, less bush, least tie.
Newsweek article that sums up the high and low points of each quite well:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6150405/site/newsweek/)
I hate how you are all biased towards this, since you want Kerry to win, you always think HE does better in something then Bush.
I'd say the same for Bush supporters, but there doesn't seem to be any pro-Bush people here.
And the debate bored me.... a lot of it was answered the same way, over and over.....
And so what if Bush stumbled upon a few words? So, he's not a great a speaker, does that make him a bad president?
"No doubt he's been practicing intensly exactly what to say in some white house speechwriter's words."
And Kerry wasn't.
Like I said, I'm not really a big Bush fan, but I can tell you guys are really leaning to Kerry on this just because you want hi mto be president.....
not really, if you were in the senate channel when we were discussing the debate, I got onto kerry's case to, but the point of this thread was who did a better job at the debate, Kerry obviously came out better.
And to make a good president you do need good public speaking skills.
I'm actually Pro-Edwards.
Originally posted by ZBomber
And so what if Bush stumbled upon a few words? So, he's not a great a speaker, does that make him a bad president?
Not necessarily, but that does make him a bad debater, which is what this thread is about :dozey:
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Not necessarily, but that does make him a bad debater, which is what this thread is about :dozey:
Not exactly. The debates are so voters (and those interested) can watch and see what the canidates would do if they were president.
And stumbling upon your words a few times doesn 't make you a bad debater. Or stupid.
D'you think I could sell my vote to a Mexican person? Or a foreigner? Because I really don't want either of these jackasses in office. :x
Originally posted by ZBomber
Not exactly. The debates are so voters (and those interested) can watch and see what the canidates would do if they were president.
And stumbling upon your words a few times doesn 't make you a bad debater. Or stupid.
I didn't say what the debates purpose was, I said what this threads purpose was, which was to say who you feel won the debate.
yes, stumbling on your words makes you a bad debater. Have you ever been part of a debate team? Saying 'um' or mispronouncing words or having large pauses between words will cause you to lose a debate because it sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about and you're just making it up as you go.
Originally posted by ZBomber
And stumbling upon your words a few times doesn 't make you a bad debater. Or stupid.
It's not his stumbling, it's his long pauses and his repetitive rhetoric. I don't get the idea that he's neccessarily dumb from when he gives speeches and partakes in debates; just that he seems to know little of what he's talking about.
yeah, in a debate team if you say uh, or pause more than 2-3 times they will sideline you.
Having proper public speaking skills is crucial to being a leader, because you need to give clear and precise messages to those you are leading, if you continuously pause and stumble on words, you can often give mixed signals, which Bush has said he's so adamantly against. If you are in a position of that high of power your public speaking skills MUST be precise, how would people feel about you when you try making a treaty when you keep stumbling on what you say? Nations respect a strong leader, with charisma and good speaking habbits, I will give Bush the credit that he has good charisma, but when he stumbles, he loses a lot of that credibility he built up.
John Kerry is a douchebag, but he's intelligent, and speaks with charisma and intelligence.
When running for that high of status, you are held at higher standards, and you have to be able to meet those high standards, because the fate of an entire nation lies within your hands.
Bush was a bit clumsy in the debate and didn't speak very well, but I don't really have any focus on that (stumbling a little on words has nothing to do with his capabilities as a president). But what I did focus on in that debate, was that Kerry actually provided plans, views and opinions and made himself clear as a presidental canidate rather than "anyone but Bush". I also noticed that Bush's only actual argument was that "OMG Kerry changes opinion he sux as president!".
Though on the other hand, we got confirmed that Kerry, just like Bush, has silly brutal facist opinions about terrorism and terrorists. If a party that had Kerry's opinions would be running here in Norway, I wouldn't vote for them if I got paid for it.
Oh well, that's what you get in a two-party nation. Picking the lesser evil...
I would think that someone lacking the cognative skills to string a sentence together would make a bad president...
That is providing you agree that putting a dumbass in power is a bad thing though :)
Old, but good
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/sovereignty.html)
The real difference between the two is that Kerry is a good speaker and Bush is not. Kerry's answers consisted of "If elected ... things would be better if my plan works." Bush kept responding with what has already been tried in the real world in different circumstances. Kerry's problem is that his voting record and his campaign promises are diametrically opposed. He is now saying one thing but in this recent past he has voted just the opposite. So what is he? That's my problem with him. We all know that Bush can't talk his way out of a wet paper bag.
We all know what Bush is...
We know what Kerrry was and we know what he promises to be. As with all parties in opposition you have to judge whether to believe them or not.
I don't think Kerry is good. In fact, I think he's aweful, but he sure looks better than all the rest.
If you think he is awful, then how can you honestly say he looks better than the rest?
Originally posted by Nairb Notneb
If you think he is awful, then how can you honestly say he looks better than the rest?
Its called the lesser of two evils, or in this case, three evils.
Exactly.
I think Churchill once said "Democracy is a terrible form of government...but it sure as hell is better than all of the rest"
This article has quite a good overview if you missed the debate:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204Z.shtml)
I agree that it is not perfect because nothing will ever be because humans are involved and they by their very nature are corrupt and power hungry I believe once they get a taste of it.
The second debate is tonight.