The Rules of Debate

[The Thinker]

Depends on what you consider a win. Hillary did exactly what she and other career politicians do. And I'm fed up with rehearsed piles of manure.

Better composed, offering detailed solutions to the problems, being coherent, being closer to the facts, etc. That's what I consider a win.

Not that I'm a Hillary supporter. I can't stand her but it is obvious that she handled that debate way better.

And do you prefer people just wing it and sound incoherent like Trump did?

[Zymologist]

Better composed, offering detailed solutions to the problems, being coherent, being closer to the facts, etc. That's what I consider a win.

Not that I'm a Hillary supporter. I can't stand her but it is obvious that she handled that debate way better.

And do you prefer people just wing it and sound incoherent like Trump did?

I think it'd be way more entertaining if they'd all just wing it and sound incoherent.

Note: I didn't watch the debate. Don't care who won.

[Bill the Cat]

Better composed, offering detailed solutions to the problems, being coherent, being closer to the facts, etc. That's what I consider a win.

One can be composed and wrong. One can offer promises that are impossible to keep and still be wrong. One can sound coherent and be wrong. One can be close to the facts and still be wrong...

Not that I'm a Hillary supporter. I can't stand her but it is obvious that she handled that debate way better.

And do you prefer people just wing it and sound incoherent like Trump did?

Wing it, yes. Incoherent, not so much. I prefer a genuine answer to a rehearsed one. Trump started out with good answers. He faded. Hillary started with rehearsed answers and stayed on her script. If anyone won, it was her writers.

[The Thinker]

One can be composed and wrong. One can offer promises that are impossible to keep and still be wrong. One can sound coherent and be wrong. One can be close to the facts and still be wrong...

Of course. No one is saying she's right. I'm saying she's more composed, offer more coherent solutions, was closer to the facts than Trump (who is impervious to facts) and therefore she won as the result of that. It's the aggregate of all those qualities together that makes a winner.

Wing it, yes. Incoherent, not so much. I prefer a genuine answer to a rehearsed one. Trump started out with good answers. He faded. Hillary started with rehearsed answers and stayed on her script. If anyone won, it was her writers.

That assumes a rehearsed answer cannot be genuine. What if you have a genuine answer that is rehearsed? Does mere rehearsing make it not genuine??

[Bill the Cat]

Of course. No one is saying she's right. I'm saying she's more composed, offer more coherent solutions, was closer to the facts than Trump (who is impervious to facts) and therefore she won as the result of that. It's the aggregate of all those qualities together that makes a winner.

Well, I think her composure was more a calculated stunt, her solutions are of the same cloth that has failed for the past 30 years, and even being "closer" to the facts, she was still pretty far off on some. As I said though, one can win a debate just by being cool and calculated and still not be the better choice.

That assumes a rehearsed answer cannot be genuine. What if you have a genuine answer that is rehearsed? Does mere rehearsing make it not genuine??

It tends to make it less genuine sounding.

[Cow Poke]

OK, as thread owner, I'm officially asking BOTH of you to stop the back-and-forth nonsense, totally unrelated to the OP.

Thanks

[Cow Poke]

The thread can now die in peace.

[Sparko]

The thread can now die in peace.

and we can start a new thread on the Vice-Presidential debate!