Political Debates: Audience vs No Audience

[Horse Style]

If you had to choose, would you make political debates consist of the politicians participating, the moderator and cameramen only or would you keep them traditional, having an audience there as well?

I find the live audience to be a hindrance. There are already time constraints placed on the participating politicians without losing 15-30 seconds multiple times because the retarded seals in the audience need to make noise every time they hear something they like.

Not to mention the flow of the debate is different. The participants can't help but play to the audience. This means solid reasoning and rebuttals are sacrificed in favor of going for applause breaks with hacky partisan talking points, shallow platitudes and those "catchy" zingers.

How do you War Roomers feel about this?

 

[Lead]

Audience is okay if they don't try to be involved with cheers/boos/clapping/etc. That one of the things that makes Maher's show rough at times, especially when the panel is all in agreement on most issues.

 

[milliniar]

A televised debate like presidential debate should just be the candidates so they don't play to the crowd.

 

[all caps]

Audience is okay if they don't try to be involved with cheers/boos/clapping/etc. That one of the things that makes Maher's show rough at times, especially when the panel is all in agreement on most issues.

The WWE encourages fan interaction. Of course, they dont cater to what the fans say, at all, ever. But it puts the butts in the seats. What is politics without the useless fan interaction?

 

[Fawlty]

They're playing to an audience of 300 million. The eighty-five nobodies in the crowd do not matter.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

No audience, it has no purpose.

 

[snakedafunky]

I don't have a problem with them
But I think those audiences helped Trump a lot in the primary debates.
Imagine if all his outrages answers would have been met with just silence from the moderators.
And not 1000 guys laughing and having a good time. That would have been completely different.

I mean say about Trump what you want. But that dude knows how to read a room.

 

[Lead]

The WWE encourages fan interaction. Of course, they dont cater to what the fans say, at all, ever. But it puts the butts in the seats. What is politics without the useless fan interaction?

I'd say WWE and a political show like that should have different goals. There's plenty of places now that people can talk politics like here. Cheering in a crowd is just a mindless way of trying to make the point you like seem like the best one.

 

[TheTimeIsNotNow]

They're playing to an audience of 300 million. The eighty-five nobodies in the crowd do not matter.

You don’t think people at home are simple minded enough to be swayed by the sports fans in the live audience?

 

[Fawlty]

You don’t think people at home are simple minded enough to be swayed by the sports fans in the live audience?

Nah, it's more about priorities, policies, and personalities. This is more of the Third Person Effect stuff that I bring up. We're overemphasizing the degree to which people other than ourselves are influenced by mass media. Whatever gains a politician could make by playing to a small audience, they would make by debating without the audience, and vice versa. We also overestimate how open-minded "undecided" voters are.

 

[Judge]

If you had to choose, would you make political debates consist of the politicians participating, the moderator and cameramen only or would you keep them traditional, having an audience there as well?

I find the live audience to be a hindrance. There are already time constraints placed on the participating politicians without losing 15-30 seconds multiple times because the retarded seals in the audience need to make noise every time they hear something they like.

Not to mention the flow of the debate is different. The participants can't help but play to the audience. This means solid reasoning and rebuttals are sacrificed in favor of going for applause breaks with hacky partisan talking points, shallow platitudes and those "catchy" zingers.

How do you War Roomers feel about this?

I am gong to say that an audience is important to the DEBATERS. Their reactions can tell you where you are succeeding or failing.
Talking = thinking out loud.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

'Bout time the "watched the last event with no sound" threads made their way to the War Room lol.

Trump via aggression and debate floor control btw.

 

[zebby23]

I like the idea of no audience

 

[Bloody Pulp]

If you write a post, and no one likes it, did you really write a post?

 

[Losfer Words]

Candidates should drink a shot of Proper 12 before each argument.