The hours of thought should have occurred before the debate. Its not like the debater has been chosen at random from the audience.
They did spent hours of thoughts and prepare to answer specific questions. Then they answer the questions that they prepared to answer regardless of the question that the moderator gives them.
You argue that they should actually answer the question they are given by the moderator. That logically means that they can't rely on hours of preparations because they can't prepare for every possible question.
You argue that they should actually answer the question they are given by the moderator. That logically means that they can't rely on hours of preparations because they can't prepare for every possible question.
For years I took exams in college and graduate school courses, as have millions of other people. I couldn't, and didn't know the questions before I took the exams, again similarly to millions of other people. And yet, not only did most of us millions of students spend a lot of time preparing for the exams, I have not heard of anyone who disagrees that preparation for these exams, for answering these unpredicted questions. was not central to our success in answering them.
See this Newsroom clip.
Basically, their news network is trying to change the way political debates work by having the moderator force the candidates to answer the questions that are asked of them, not interrupt each other, justify arguments that are based on obvious falsehoods etc.
How big of a positive impact do you guys think that this would have on society?
My initial thoughts are that it would be huge. It would lead to better politicians, which would be a high level of action. The positive effects would trickle down into many aspects of our society.
The question then becomes, "can we make this happen?". I don't see a way right now, but the idea has enough upside to me that I keep it in the back of my mind in case I come up with a plausible way of implementing the change.
Thoughts?