Skip to main content
How Mitt Romney and Joe Biden Won Their Debates
(or How We Are Making Society Worse)


I do listen to what others say, but I always apply thought to it and never just follow the herd.  This is what happened during the recent American presidential and vice presidential debates.  And I came to the exact opposite conclusions as were generally announced in the media.

Now, the way I determine if someone won a debate is whether I feel they did a good job getting across their message in a good way.  I may not agree with someone's message at all, but if I think that person got it across better, I'll give that person the win.  Such was the case when I saw Thunderf00t (a YouTube atheist) debating certain creationists.  In most instances, I felt that the creationists won...not because they were right, but because Thunderf00t's showing made me feel embarrassed for him.  He just has trouble debating.

Now, I watched the debates before I heard any of the talking heads on TV, and this is what I thought:

Barack Obama won the first debate against Mitt Romney.  Although he didn't answer some of the blatant lies levied against him, he appeared presidential and answered the questions in an easily understandable and professional way.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was aggressive and childish, both towards his opponent and towards the moderator.  I am not saying that a debater must not be aggressive - Christopher Hitchens is the perfect example of someone who could be aggressive in style.  The way Romney was aggressive, though, just made him seem pathetic.

Paul Ryan beat Joe Biden.  After the media said that Mitt Romney won, I was sort of shocked.  Mitt was so rude and appeared to be the bully.  It was then that I realized that viewers like bullying more than they like substance.  This is also the reason why there are far more "reality" shows on TV than there are science shows...the mob finds aggression more entertaining than facts.  Also, perhaps Fox News or some other conservative source was merely the first to announce a victory, and everyone followed them (as in the 2000 elections with them declaring Bush the winner).  People don't like thinking for themselves.  They love to be told what to think.  This goes for news networks, too.  After that, I realized that the Democrats would force Joe Biden to be extremely aggressive - cutting off his opponent during his opponent's time to speak, snickering, and asking the moderator, "You're gonna let me answer, right?" even when it was apparent that his time to answer was coming up.  I knew that the Democrats would give into the mob which feeds off anger and try to turn the next debate into a fight.  And I also knew that it would be Biden to do it, as he is already known for being more outspoken than Obama.

I should have posted my prediction, because I was proven right but only to myself.  It would have been nice for others to realize that I was right, too!  Biden did exactly what I thought he'd do.  He was rude and childish as Romney had been in the first debate.  And most people ate it up.  And this is how we are the ones who are degrading civility and society in general.  We don't laud those who are better, but rather those who are louder.

Now, there's one other thing I should point out.  CNN's poll showed that Ryan had won the debate.  Yet CNN admitted that it polled mostly Republicans.  I ask, how could you possibly respect a news organization which asks a mostly Republican group who won, and they then pick their man, and then this news organization posts this as being a legitimate poll.  This should be a scandal, yet it isn't.  Their poll is being picked up by other "news" organizations and being spread around willy-nilly, with people who just read headlines none the wiser.  I do think that Ryan won, but CNN should be ashamed of themselves for deceiving people.

Well, those are my thoughts about the debates.  I really hope that the next presidential debates have both people calm and answering questions in a civil way, without ingratiating themselves to those who have been cheapening society through their preference for drama over substance.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sokal-style hoaxes work for religious postmodernists, but (post) modernism is the real hoax Modernism in art and architecture, and postmodernism in philosophy are, like religion, insults to human intelligence.  Unfortunately, many people fall for their hollow propaganda. The "Sokal Affair" was a hoax whereby a man called Alan Sokal submitted a postmodern-sounding article to a postmodern journal.  It turns out that the English you hear isn't just unintelligible to you, but it's unintelligible to the people at the journal as well.  But if it's unintelligible, it must be profound, right?  The journal quickly accepted it, not knowing that it was all fake B.S.  They then got embarrassed when they were told that it was pompous-sounding drivel. Religion has done the same thing.  When people can't understand something, they generally think it's much more profound than if they can understand it.  If a priest speaks Latin, wears some weird costume, and sp...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Islamic State has beheaded at least 21 Christians in Libya.

Whenever a Muslim brings up the Crusades, I have to laugh to myself.  Christians have done horrible things, including in later crusades against Constantinople and the Cathars in particular.  However, get this.  The Islamic State militants said, "Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for" right before butchering Egyptian Christians. It seems that many Muslims haven't taken a single history class.  If they had, they would have known that Christians existed in Egypt for 400 years before Islam.  (Heck, they were even around to murder Hypatia, perhaps the last major ancient female philosopher.)  It was the Muslims who were the "Crusaders"...yet almost nobody will admit to this.  Muslims instigated a merciless war against Christian Egyptians until they were overcome and under Islamic domination.  They did this to people across the world, from Spain to India...massacring any who resisted.  They tried to destroy the Byzaintine Em...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Defense of...Cecil Rhodes?!

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph H...
3 comments
Read more