Food & Drink2 mins ago
Has Dave's Bluff Been Called?
Answers
The more contributors to the "debate" the less chance of real discourse. We'll get just the repetition of sound bytes, rhetorical flourishes (from the more articulate) and cheap gibes. Bit like Question Time (or most of the "News" threads on AB). Arguments and premises will not be exposed to honest scrutiny and criticism. The usual response to a contrary...
16:16 Fri 23rd Jan 2015
Rather than being asked fewer questions, now that more party leaders are taking part it should go on for longer; and the highlights related to those with a chance of having influence after the election being the bits that get broadcast. (With the whole of the live show going out on the parliament channel for those interested, if anyone.)
The more contributors to the "debate" the less chance of real discourse. We'll get just the repetition of sound bytes, rhetorical flourishes (from the more articulate) and cheap gibes. Bit like Question Time (or most of the "News" threads on AB). Arguments and premises will not be exposed to honest scrutiny and criticism. The usual response to a contrary view will be the (louder) restatement one's own position, or the misrepresention of one's opponent's position, or a sneer, depending on whether the moral or intellectual inadequacy of the "debater" is the stronger constituent of his or her character.
The US head to head format is also flawed with its artificial "opening statement followed by first rebuttal followed by...". I would prefer to see one to ones where opening statements are followed by a sit-down face to face real discussion which would allow the viewer to assess what differences between the two sides are genuine differences of principle or philosophy, and which differences of method only.
The US head to head format is also flawed with its artificial "opening statement followed by first rebuttal followed by...". I would prefer to see one to ones where opening statements are followed by a sit-down face to face real discussion which would allow the viewer to assess what differences between the two sides are genuine differences of principle or philosophy, and which differences of method only.
I agree. It is ludicrous including the Scottish and Welsh parties but not the Northern Irish ones.
In my view SNP and PC should have been invited to one debate only, along with the Irish parties. Or else no non-national parties should have been invited at all. This illustrates the problem with these debates: we have a multi-party, multi-national system now unlike the US, on which these debates allegedly are modelled.
But it will be interesting to see what the Tories do now: it seems clear that they hoped that the whole thing would be scuppered, and now they face the prospect of being forced into a head-to-head with Labour or being accused of running scared.
In my view SNP and PC should have been invited to one debate only, along with the Irish parties. Or else no non-national parties should have been invited at all. This illustrates the problem with these debates: we have a multi-party, multi-national system now unlike the US, on which these debates allegedly are modelled.
But it will be interesting to see what the Tories do now: it seems clear that they hoped that the whole thing would be scuppered, and now they face the prospect of being forced into a head-to-head with Labour or being accused of running scared.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.