politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Trump doesn't debate anyone ever. He shows up and steamrolls the other person with his version of reality.
And when he's done, he flips the table, shits on it, and then declares victory...
...and his base fucking eats it up with a -smile.-
It's baffling.
The kind of people that eat up his “debating” style are people who treat the idea of an open debate of concepts the same way - that is to say that they’d be flipping tables and shitting everywhere themselves. They’re uneducated and hold unqualified and unjustifiable positions, and the only way to maintain those positions is to simply ignore or reject all rhetoric to the contrary.
They eat it up because that’s exactly how they’d act when faced with reason, logic, facts or statistics.
That's what really throws me for a loop. There are a lot of dumb people that think he's smart, but there are also a lot of smart people that buy into it too... Is fear really that powerful? It is, I know... But damn...
He debated Biden and got crushed.
But were they debates? Can we really call them that?
I know that's what the forum called for, but I saw zero debating.
Jerry Springer episodes had more debating going on.
all I remember was Biden saying "will you shutup man"
I mean, that's a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.
In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules "oh no, you don't deserve the winner title because that wasn't even a race"?
If there were only two cars would it have been a race?
It was called a race, people expected to see a race, but no race took place.
It was not a race.
Yes. It would have been called a race.
Let's give you a better example, then. A boxing match.
One of the boxers just runs around trying to touch the other contender's butt.
He gets disqualified.
The other boxer wins the match.
What the public (including you) thinks of it is irrelevant. The judges were there and ruled who won the match per the scenario presented.
Let me try it this way...
If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? "What an interesting looking dog." or "Sir, that is a cat."
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn't a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it's as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like "sir, this is a poker tournament." So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn't follow the usual rules, and it didn't help him at all.
Right. But no boxing took place.
Well, like I said, that's your opinion. A bit dense in my own opinion, but if it's yours, it's yours.
What does the word debate mean to you?
Edit for clarity: In the context of a formal, moderated event.
Debate means to me what it means to you. Whatever the dictionary says.
Informally I guess it's an event in which two or more parties have a side in an argument, and they intend to prove that their side is the right one.
If I were to define it off the top of my head, I'd say it means a mutually respectful argument.
That being said, your comment rang a bell: A couple weeks ago I stumbled across descriptive and prescriptive linguistics. I'd mostly forgotten about it, but it's super relevant here.
The basic idea according to descriptivists is that laguage is living and a words meaning can change based on how it's being used by native speakers as a whole. Meanwhile prescriptivists insist on rules and grammar.
Or in other words; We're both right.
I'm using the word debate as it's typically used to describe a mutually respectful discussion of differing opinions, wheras you're coming from a more by the books, black and white stance.
I found this video on Youtube that ultimately posits descriptivism works better for speech, perscriptivism works better for writing. I agree, and Social media is a little bit of both.
It's an interesting watch at around 7 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih0UqZ7O7Cg
Merriam-Webster has a decent write up on it too: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography
It does come off a bit pointed, imo, but I found that most sources unfortunately do.
Cool! We're both right, then.
Have a nice Friday!