Rate the Debate, the Final Chapter

[Ranting Randy]

Rate the Debate: 53 Point difference!
Debate Score: Harris + 15 Trump -38

I developed the "Rate the Debate" scoring system because today’s “Presidential Debates” are not actually debates but are really political theater. Most of what the candidates do is to simply say the lines they have rehearsed. As political theater, these “debates” are judged, by the majority of the viewing audience, by entertainment standards rather than by the strength of the policies or the arguments presented by the candidates. And that’s a problem.

Because entertainment has overshadowed policy, people with little knowledge of actual debates think a “gotcha” moment or something humorous is important, when actually these comments should have no impact on how a policy or argument is evaluated. And certainly no impact on who won the debate.

One benefit of an actual debate is that they are judged by judges who declare a winner. In the realm of political theater, no one had been asked to be a judge, so the political talking heads spin and spin, trying to turn their candidate into a silk purse.

For these non-debates I’ve developed a system where “we the people” (instead of talking heads) can have something objective to say about the debate. The scoring systems I’m suggesting we use is so simple that anyone can “Rate the Debate”.

The simplest way is to divide a sheet of paper into two columns. Label one column “Harris” and one column “Trump”. When a speaker talks you can simply award one point if the candidate did well (presented a coherent argument, for example). Or you can award a -1 point if the candidate didn’t answer the question, and an additional -1 if the candidate lied. You can award multiple positive and negative points each time a candidate speaks. In the end we might be able to say that on the issue of immigration, candidate X scored 3 points and candidate Y scored -2 points.

This system encourages “the people” to participate in debate evaluations rather than leaving the ratings to the those who are promoting a political stance.

Instead of saying “I feel candidate X did better,” we can add some degree of objectivity and say, candidate X did better by 53 points. We can add even more objectivity by listing each of the statements each candidate made and the awarded / deducted points in front of each statement.

Afterwards, we could even review a transcript to further tighten our ratings.

Because Trump is known for his “Gish Gallop” of lies, traditional debate scoring could not work, plus there are no judges tasked with identifying a winner and explaining why the winner did a better job. So this “Rate the Debate” system needed to be developed.

Scoring:
Add 1 Point for the Following:
- Thoughts are organized, clearly presented and make sense
- Statements are supported with facts, evidence, examples, etc.
- Were the candidate’s statements coherent and persuasive?
- Candidate was able to clearly and accurately criticize the other’s policy weaknesses.


Subtract 1 Point for the Following
- For each lie or significant inaccuracy
- Failure to answer the question
- Personal attacks on the opponent
- Repeated interruptions of the opponent’s time
- Each time a false claim is repeated

Do Not Award or Subtract Points for the Following:
- Zingers, jokes, wisecracks, comedy

Summary:

During the alleged debate, Trump primarily focused on lies, riling up fear and hate, and fabricating a dystopian view of America if he once again loses the election. Of course, if he actually does become President again, he will create a dystopian America with mass deportations, the reinstatement of the political patronage system, political persecutions of his opponents, he’ll limit the rights of women, and will weaponize the Department of Justice against anyone he deems worthy of retribution.


My Scoring Totals

I awarded -1 for each lie and -1 when the candidate avoided answering the question.
In negative ratings Harris was rated as -2 and Trump as -38.
Regarding positive points, Harris was rated as + 17 and Trump 0.

Harris: 17 positive points -2 negative points = + 15
Trump 38 negative points, 0 positive points = - 38 points.

A 53 point difference is nothing less than a slaughter!

These numbers are not 100% accurate, as the scoring was done while I watched the debate, and I have not had the chance to go back and watch the whole thing again or to review a word for word transcript to tidy up my ratings. But even if I was too harsh on Trump and we randomly erase 5 of his negative points and if I was too easy on Harris and erase 5 of her positive points, there would still be a 43 point difference, which is way beyond the margin of error.

The important thing to remember is that Trump had NO positive points! He did not outline any type of plan. Even when repeatedly pressed on what changes he wanted to make to Obamacare, a program he’s had 9 years to evaluate, he avoided the question (and I awarded him -1).

After this debate, no rational person can conclude that voting for Trump will bring about better policies for the people of our nation. During the debate there were literally no policies or arguments to support voting for Trump. The only reasons to vote for Trump is because you want to and even though there are no logical reasons for doing so, you’ve bought into his hate and fear.

Finally, I am not an expert. I did debate for 5 years in high school and college, and my best record was 20 wins and 3 losses. I also taught debate at a school that won zero rounds of debate the year before I arrived, we spent a year debating and the next year, two teams went on to the State tournament. So even though I may not be an “expert,” I know enough to make some pertinent observations and I hope this rating system helps move the debate from subjective blather spewed forth from talking heads into something more objective that we individuals can do on our own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Walleye]

1. I like it, it's like scoring a boxing match

[cachukis]

2. Well done. Well thought out.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Put it in book form, empower citizens to have a more critical eye on debates

Talking heads ont TV are half the problem. Ordinary folks need to learn how to think.