General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFound this interesting, debate tactic: Gish Gallop...
Related to that, I read an fascinating piece at Daily Kos this afternoon that I commend your attention to. Its called Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop. Heres a snippet:
As fact checkers busily highlight the myriad number of lies and distortions offered by Mitt-Etch-A-Sketch-Romney during last nights debate, and the spinners spin their polls with impunity, I find it interesting that the debate tactic itself has not yet been discussed nor properly analyzed. In fact, the lies and distortions offered by Romney in last nights debate are the very ESSENCE of his tactic and is therefore quite pertinent to the discussion. Romney used a debate tactic known as the Gish Gallop.
Heres what Wikipedia says about the Gish Gallop:
[Duane] Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the Gish Gallop, describing it as where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasnt a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.
This is what Mitt Romney did to a tee last night. He spewed so many untruths that there was simply no way President Obama could have refuted even some of them and still get out his message.
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/president-obamas-take-on-last-nights-debate-youre-going-to-love-this.html
Iggy
(1,418 posts)for Rmoney's more or less stellar victory last nite??
uhhhh, no.
I'm wayyy more concerned about our President's debate "strategy"/technique-- and whether or not he's
going to get it together for the next debate.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)just saying it looks like that's what Romney did...and that's it's a fucked up way to debate. Excuse me for expressing an opinion.
My take on the debate...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1463653
Please don't hurt your head.
blm
(113,081 posts)standard on the RW issue circuit.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)was perfect for this type of 'strategy'. It'll be done again, watch for it. Especially for candidates like Mitt who can lie with such ease. That in itself is disturbing.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)it's just that I saw this debate technique talked about/dissed on several blogs.
if people are implying this gave Rmoney some sort of advantage.. that Obama "just couldn't
handle it".. I'm not buying it.
the much bigger problem is Obama being totally mute when Rmoney threw the "you spent
$90 billion in one year on incentives for green industries" bullcrap at him. he stated this, what?
THREE times, at least?
WHY was Obama silent on this? he didn't see this as a teachable moment-- to let the 60
million people watching the debate know that we have to transition to clean, alternative energy,
and that doing so will create 1,000's of good jobs over the next ten years?
Hellooooooooooo? Climate Change?
uhhh...
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)Iggy
(1,418 posts)bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)What do you learn about a person in a debate that you didn't know before the debate? Usually nothing, other than how good a bullshitter a person is.
I used to be a bit of a debater in high school, but my style was like Romney's last night - you don't care what the facts are, only in bullying the opponent into submission. You can easily inundate an opponent with more bullshit than they can possibly address in an equal amount of time. You can con your way through a lie if you time and deflect things right, or con your lying ass into appearing to be in a position of authority - its more about balls than facts.
I hated it by the end of high school. In college, especially studying science where any statement must be backed and verifiable by facts and references, it was like a whole new world of daylight; I recall looking back and feeling like I'd learned little more from debate than how to be an ass in public.
I don't think Romney ever grew up to that point, as he seems to be a committed debater, in the worst sense of the word.
Cha
(297,469 posts)thinks he won. Social Media have their own opinions..
"By Friday morning, the counterargument that Obama had actually won on substance had taken root, with online sentiment now favoring the president:"
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14244918-social-media-analysis-who-really-won-the-debate
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)Horrible creationist shill.
JHB
(37,161 posts)Duane Gish was a pioneer in the RW tactic of lawyerly selective case-making masquerading as "science".
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)'I notice your nose is getting longer'
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Gish Gallop. There is no way anyone can counter that kind of congenital liar when they're in the throes of spewing their spiel. Let the fact checkers do their job afterwards.
Granville
(2 posts)IF we want properly organized, orderly debates, I suggest we have stronger moderators equipped with an on-off switch for each debater's microphone. We can still watch their body language, but when one goes off topic or interrupts, etc., the moderator can just turn off the offender's microphone. (This would be good for some of the talk shows as well.)
Cha
(297,469 posts)someone like romney right in the bud.
Jim Lerher was your last steamrolled mod, mitt.