Dastardly Debating - Blog Post 9

http://viintage.com/wp-content/uploads/stock-graphics-vintage-the-circus-procession-viintage-0001v.jpg

Transcript of debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/transcript-republican-presidential-debate.html?_r=0

                 The Republican debate on October 28th of this year was nothing short of a three-ring circus. Both the moderators and the candidates were grossly ineffective, making the debate frustrating to me. Only one candidate managed to emerge looking competent and presidential. Ad hominems abounded while biased and poor questioning demonstrated terrible leadership on the part of the moderators. Let's examine each in turn:

The Moderators: Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and John Harwood were the main moderators of the debate, and I use the term moderate loosely. Instead of fostering an environment to encourage competent exchanges and informative conversations, these moderators did not even ask truly pointed policy questions half the time. Many times their questions did not but spark a firestorm of insults and nonsensical discussion. For example, John Harwood asked Donald Trump, "Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" While I agree that Trump's campaign is ridiculous to say the least such a question is inflammatory and does not seek to better illuminate his policies. Similarly, Marco Rubio was asked by Quintilla this gem : "So when the Sun-Sentinel says Rubio should resign, not rip us off, when they say Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job, when they say you act like you hate your job, do you?". Once again, this question does nothing by exacerbate the candidates. These questions and many others throughout the debate seem more like personal attacks rather than competent questioning of policies and facts. An example of poor moderating came after Rubio discussion of his tax plan. Rand Paul desired to follow up which many candidates had done indiscriminately throughout the debate and the moderators allowed it. However, when Paul asked to be allowed to follow up Quick responded "It is at the moderator discretion". I must say I found that to be pathetic on all their moderators' parts. Part of debating is allowing rebuttal. They told Paul that they would "come back around" and then moved to talking to Kasich about marijuana which I found to be disrespectful. Ted Cruz summed it up well according to an article by Vanity Fair which showed live tweets regarding the debate (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/cnbc-gop-debate-criticism). He stated, "This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”'". To be perfectly honest, though I am not a big Cruz fan, I agree with him. While he paraphrases the questions poorly, he actually accurately depicts the basic issue. Each question is an automatic and agenda-setting tear down with very little to do with policy. I did not feel that many of the questions were informative or fair. They seemed designed to turn the candidates against each other rather than the issues. Now, that is not to say that Cruz did not have his fair share of tom-foolery. He should have answered Quintanilla's relatively legitimate question before getting on his soap box (although, once again, the question was very poorly worded as it attacked Cruz and "not being the problem solver that people want"). Such moderating is shame and perpetuates the divide that is so clearly emerging in America. While I agree that candidates much be able to handle criticism and questions regarding their character, actions, and policies, that did not seem like the purpose of this debate. I could go into much more detail about the ridiculous moderating, but that would be a very long discussion. To be fair, not all of their questions where horrible, but the ones that were certainly overshadowed the more competent parts of the debate. Honestly, I thought Santelli had some very competent and informative questions, and I wish he had been in control. No wonder we have no bi-partisanship in Washington.

the Candidates: While the moderators demonstrated poor leadership and questioning, the candidates absolutely did their fair share to follow the ridiculous example set. They waltzed right into the divisive questioning and demonstrated an inability to be effective and competent in spite of a tough situation.

Donald Trump: I cannot believe he was the front runner for so long. Trump was vague with many of his answers. Not only that, he certainly used red herrings and ad hominems and false information. For example, he says that Kasich was a general partner and Lehman Brothers which is not true. Similarly, he claims that he never said that Rubio is the personal senator of Zuckerberg which is also not true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). Not only is it not true, but Trump's point about Rubio is also a personal attack and not an actually argument. Fallacious tactics such as this permeated trump's debate performance.

John Kasich: Kasich spent most of the night trying to appeal to his own ethos. Could that be considered an appeal to authority even though he appealed to his own? It sure seemed like it. For example, he stated that "I’m the only person on this stage that actually was involved in the chief architect of balancing the Federal Budget", a sentiment that he echoed throughout the night. This poor argumentation did not build up his legitimacy as a candidate but rather made him appear to be begging for votes and acceptance. It felt like he talked about himself rather than his policies.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee's performance was relatively nondescript. Neither was it impressive nor atrocious as some of the others. However, he did use some fallacies. Most notably, for example, when talking about Social Security, he compared it to getting mugged. This is a false analogy and an oversimplification of a very complex issues. On the other hand, I thought he made a good point regarding Wall Street Corporation and governmental favoritism as well as the health crisis plaguing America. It is nice to see that someone recognizes the wage gap is unfair and recognizes that people need to be educated on taking care of themselves, a better solution than money for the health industry.

Jeb Bush: Oh mercy. I wish he would drop out of the race. I appreciated that, in his opening, he was honest about his impatience and anger issues. I was glad to see he answered the question that was asked. However, the rest of the debate was a train wreck. One of his most notable fallacies was his ad hominem against Marco Rubio, attacking his voting record when trying to mask his own hypocritical standards. This is also a strawman because he did not address the issue. Similarly, he used red herrings and straw men several times to push his own agenda. For example, Harwood asked his a question regarding his slashing payroll, and Bush does not even all him to finish the question. Rather, he denies it and goes on to explain how effective he was as governor. He completely strayed from the issue posed in the question and seemed quite defensive. He also said that Florida has the lowest in-state tuition when speaking of higher education which is technically, not fully true ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate).

Carly Fiorina: I thought Fiorina did pretty well in the debate. I was not overly horrified by her or overly impressed. She held herself well and was even a bit funny at times. However, she did say that more women have fallen into poverty under the current administration which is not entirely true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). I appreciated her idea of making the tax law only three pages, but I have to wonder- is such a plan even viable? I also thought she did a good job circumventing the question by Quick regarding Tom Perkins (who I think has ridiculous voting ideas). She could have easily come across as falsely appealing to an authority, but instead, she acknowledged that they disagreed and rather was using him to justify her legitimacy despite being fired.

Rand Paul: I don't have a lot to say about Paul. His plans are....unrealistic I think, to say the least.

Chris Christie: Not a fan of his opening. I wish he would have just answered the question and then moved on. Attacking the democratic candidates is not really effective at this point. It is an ad hominem and a red herring. Attack the issues, not the people. Leadership is not about childish mud-slinging. I did like how he called out Harwood out for his rudeness. I found that quite funny.

Ted Cruz: This man....can be very irksome. I felt that he appealed to tradition a lot, particularly by bringing up Ronald Reagan. He also made generalizations such as "the American people" say or feel; however, each candidate is guilty of this in their own right. While I agreed with his point, I thought his rant about the media bias and the moderators was a red herring and did not address the question. However, to his credit, perhaps he was trying to make a point that he did not feel he would be able to make later. He falsely stated that women's wages have fallen (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). He interrupted a lot which I found frustrating.

Ben Carson: His math was a little bit scary. His numbers regarding regulations costs for employers was not accurate (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). He also claimed he had no involvement with a company called Mannatech which was also, not entirely true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). Overall, I thought his debate performance was fine. He did well at being civil and answering questions, although his inexperience was evident at times.

Marco Rubio: While some of the things he said such as the stuff about his personal finances were not accurate (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/) which is extremely disconcerting, I thought his performance was one of the best. His answers were proficient, and he demonstrated resolve and purpose in his plans. Also, his shutdown of Bush's personal attack was, perhaps, the best thing about that debate. He did a good job of refusing to stoop to the personal attacks perpetuated by his fellow debaters and moderators. However, more needs to be revealed about his personal finances.

Overall, most of the candidates employed fallacies in their arguments. Whether they appealed to tradition or authority, used ad hominems, employed red herrings, generalized, or simply just interrupted, the candidates failed to demonstrate civil, coherent, accurate debating which was only exacerbated by the terrible moderating. A few candidates emerged relatively unscathed, but I certainly do not have a lot of confidence in them.