Tonight is the first of three presidential election debates (there will be one vice-presidential debate). The debate tonight is meant to focus on domestic policy-- issues affecting only the United States itself. As you watch the debate, ask yourself the following questions. Answer the questions in several complete sentences each on this blog.
1. What makes for a strong response to the questions, in your opinion? Support your claim with an example from the debate.
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the debate format? How does the format of the debate shape the discussion? Support your answer with an example. How would you change the debate format?
3. What "domestic policy" questions did not get discussed, that you think were important?
Please remember to be respectful of others. This forum itself is not a debate forum-- it's a chance for you to reflect on the format of the debates, and the benefits and limitations of that format.
I think that a strong answer consists of a clear answer that specifically answers the question. In some of the questions they answered they beat around the bush, not fully answering the question. In the opening remarks they both went through a list of very important issues and talked about all of the different things thoroughly and completely. I believe that regular people should be asking the questions after all they are the voters. Another problem is there isn't any evidence for what they're saying. They should be able to defend what they are saying through pictures, articles, statements, people and other forms of evidence. I think they should of discussed the DREAM act and womens rights. I also think they should have talked about different clean energies such as wind and solar power. I think they should have focused more on these issues instead of only mentioning them once.
ReplyDelete1. A clear, strong, response.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the Moderator should cut the candidate off at 2 minutes. It makes the candidate have a short,clear speech. It also helps the fact that one candidate would talk over another.
3. They discussed Role of Government, Healthcare, Economy. I think that Environment should have a part too...
A strong response consists of a 2 fundamental things. A reachable goal, and reasonable strategies to achieve that goal. The goal must be at least feasible, and the strategies must also be feasible to execute.
ReplyDeleteThe format, by about the third segment, had about flown out the window. However, if the candidates to abide by the time limits, the format would prompt the candidates to get their point across quickly, and not dwell on "fluff." However, the format invites direct attack to one candidate or the other.
They're missing a subject that I particularly like: Science. Nothing was mentioned about sciences, or climate change.
1-
ReplyDeleteA strong response in my opinion was when Obama responded to Romney and Obama said, "But how can you recover 7 trillion dollars without the loopholes accumulating to a point where you just dump it on the next president?"
2-
This debate was not nearly strict enough. Every time "Jim" tried to go to the next question either Obama or Romney would cut "Jim" off and talk for 2x the allowed time! And this caused us to get only a few questions done.
3-
Also another very important topic that didn't get discussed was the abortion problem. Even though it is a very emotional topic they still should have talked about the abortion problem.
1) A strong response is when the candidate mentions how that would affect middle class families. Such as when Obama was talking about tax cuts and Obamacare.
ReplyDelete2) There are two pedestals where the candidates sit and a desk where the "referee"
sits. The audience cannot make any noise. I like that each candidate gets 2 minutes to speak, but when the go over they should have 10 seconds to finish the point. I hated it when Romney would interrupt Obama or Jim and Jim couldn't stop him. If I could change the format, I would let the audience talk so it is obvious when a candidate makes a bad point and the candidate can fix it.
3) I think immigration should have been discussed as well as gay marriage.
1) It was a strong response when Obama was hinting that Romney was lying. For example, when Obama talked about 5 trillion dollar tax cuts, Romney said that that was not part of his plan. Then, Obama said that for the past 18 months, that had been Romney's plan.
ReplyDelete2) Between the first and second segments, Romney said that since Obama talked first the last segment, that now it was his turn to talk first. But later, in the third segment, Romney talked first again. A part that worked was that they were timed, so that they wouldn't talk forever, and also, at the end, you could see how long they talked. I think the format could be more clear to people watching the debate.
3) Obama and Romney pretty much talked about taxes and health care the whole time. They talked a lot about how new health care systems would effect seniors, disabled people, and lower class people. They didn't really talk about the average middle class American and how health care changes would effect them.
1. A strong answer for each question should include facts and not mainly opinions. An example, the candidates used specific numbers for the deficit that supported their view points.
ReplyDelete2. They do not enforce the time limit for answering the questions. The strength of the debate format is there is only one moderator instead of a group of people asking questions. The set up for the debate is in a triangular formation so that they can all make eye contact with each other. I would like to see them incorporate a buzzer for when someone has gone over their time limit. also to ask questions that are not political so that we can see their human side.
3.Womans rites
1) A strong response consists of a topic statement that sums up the debaters answer. The response should also have an example from the past. IT should also have the politicians personal view of the situation. In some of the questions the politicians were asked to compare each others plans, so the responses should also make your audience give you the "one up" from your opponent.
ReplyDelete2)The debate format keeps the answers organized and lets the debaters make and argue about the other's while giving each other the equal opportunity. As well as having good qualities, the debate format has some weaknesses. Some of them are that you have a limited amount of time and limited topics to win over the audience with. The debate format helps to keep the discussion balanced and it can keep the arguments connected.
3) I think that the debate moderator should have brought up the question of how the politicians view the problem of affordable housing.
A good response in a debate has to support what the speaker has been saying; the speaker should complete a question or statement thoroughly before moving on. Each person should say what he or she have to say clearly, and make sure they know what point they are trying to get through before speaking that thought. Each speaker should listen to the other debaters, and make sure they stay on topic. An example of this is when Mitt Romney explained his six-step plan to make more jobs, and lower taxes. He clearly said his point, and throughout the debates, both Mitt Romney and President Obama wanted more time to express their thoughts, and had to be cut off.
ReplyDeleteThe debate format is good because there is someone controlling how much time is spent on each question, and they can shape it so the two debaters won’t talk about the same thing for a long time and then they would run out of time. I also think that it would be better if there was more time, or if it was controlled better, because every time Jim Lehrer tried to stop Obama and Romney to move on to the next subject, they would just talk over him.
I think a very important subject that wasn’t addressed was the issue of drugs use. I know that drug use occurs in the society I live in, and it’s a big deal for a lot of places in Chicago and around the United states.
1. The way Romney and Obama looked, ties, and Romney tried to looked superior and Obama looked tired. Romney looked energized and kept repeating points (such as Massachusetts had the most highly rated schools in the country) and Obama kept loosing his train of thought.
ReplyDelete2. They need a format which doesn't allow people to go beyond their time limit.
3. I think that they should have discussed poverty and how to help poorer people.
1) A good response should throw off your opponent and find loop holes in there ideas
ReplyDelete2) The strengths of the debate format is that one gets to hear all of the presidents and opponents ideas, but the down side is that they do it so late in the election that it won't change the minds of a lot of people
3) They did not talk about the dependency of America on oil
1) I think to have a strong response you need to explain your point and why/how it will help the U.S. in the future. You need to talk about people you have met on your campaign and how they have affected your ideas, and what your opponent’s ideas will do to the country. I think it is very important to keep your audience interested in what you are saying and to really make sure the audience understands your point of view. For example they talked a lot in the debate about Obama Care, and how it is helping and hurting the country. Several of the questions Romney was given asked about what he would to Obama Care if he was elected. In his answers Romney talked about people he had met on the campaign and what they had said to him about their Obama Care and insurance, how they couldn’t pay for it, and how they couldn’t retire because of it.
ReplyDelete2) The debate last night was called a moderate debate, which means the contestants stand at two podiums, and one moderator asks all the questions. The contestants have two minutes to answer each question, but last night the moderator didn’t have much of a hold on the contestants. It was much like the Kennedy, Nixon debate in 1960, and dramatically different from the Lincoln, Douglas senate debate in 1856. Many times in the debate last night, the contestants took more then two minutes to answer a question, or the contestant would talk after their opponent answered a question, stating their ideas on that topic. Like if Obama gave an answer, when he finished Romney would start talking right away about his idea for that question, or why what Obama is doing is hurting the U.S. as appose to helping it. The contestants not being able to talk to each other, I think is a weakness, because they don’t get to say much about their opponent until their ending statement. Although, I do think having the moderator control is a strengthens because then it stays in control, one question for this person, then one question for the other. But like I said, last night the moderator wasn’t able to really keep a hand on the contestants.
3) Last night the debate was on Domestic Policy, they talked a lot about Health Care, and a little about education. One thing they did not talk about last night, was crime and gun control.
1. I think a strong response is when you dont lie and show your true colors. you have too be ready for all the questions and feel comfortable with anything.
ReplyDelete2.I think they should change the way the moderators try and make the debate less rude. The moderator was being talked over all night.
3. They didnt talk enough about safety