A 4-hour debate?
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 23:06 last edited by Mik
A debate of that length and format might well get into their real thinking, past the soundbites. When you get Trump taking about a lot of subjects in depth you find out that he knows quite a bit.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:21 last edited by
It is interesting that the "original" debates, such as between President Lincoln and Senator Douglas, the first person would speak for 1 hour, the second person would reply for 1.5 hours, and then the 1st person would re-reply for 0.5 hours.
Total was 3 hours.
I think that something like that would not work in todays world. Most people have the small attention span. LOL
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:22 last edited by
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:29 last edited by
Personal communication was much more important then. Hell, if you look at the letters they wrote, thye were long winded too.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:31 last edited by@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
I remember hearing that. At the time of the speech from Lincoln, and just afterwards, he was almost forgotten. Such a short speech, the people there had no idea it would become one of the most famous speeches ever.
A couple of years ago, a historian found the only known picture of President Lincoln at Gettysburg. I thought it was an interesting story.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:32 last edited by
They had no idea how many students would have to memorize it.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 02:46 last edited by@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 03:12 last edited by@Rainman said in A 4-hour debate?:
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
Ford's theater was mostly peaceful that night. Less than 1% of the audience received any assassinations.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 03:20 last edited by
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg. And yet that broken bone is considered insignificant, compared to the other stuff that happened. That's where the phrase "break a leg" originated - it means that even if you break your leg, you still might be very lucky, compared to what else could have happened to you.
-
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg. And yet that broken bone is considered insignificant, compared to the other stuff that happened. That's where the phrase "break a leg" originated - it means that even if you break your leg, you still might be very lucky, compared to what else could have happened to you.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 11:48 last edited by@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 12:27 last edited by@Rainman said in A 4-hour debate?:
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
He also was a helluva vampire slayer.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 12:52 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 13:12 last edited by
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 13:14 last edited by
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
-
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 14:04 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 14:16 last edited by@George-K said in A 4-hour debate?:
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
I thought I invented the notion for that post as a joke. Guess not.
-
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
wrote on 15 Sept 2020, 14:26 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in A 4-hour debate?:
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
Maybe for you.
-
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
wrote on 16 Sept 2020, 20:05 last edited by@Klaus said in A 4-hour debate?:
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
That's the whole point of it being 4 hours. For one, his audience doesn't watch or listen to him in the same way that they watch The Simpsons. It's not the same format at all. Clearly no one has a problem with the length of his podcasts, he's the most listened to person on the planet.
Second, any jackass can recite stock 90-second answers and 30-second rebuttals. But can you honestly bullshit for 4 hours when the moderator (and your opponent) can interrupt you at any point? It'd be a far better way to get to the bottom of who the candidates actually are. Far more informative than the political theatre we're usually subjected to.
I mean hell, it's a podcast, not Columbo. It's not like you have to tune in and watch the whole thing in one go.
-
wrote on 16 Sept 2020, 20:08 last edited by
I would expect Trump to win any debate.
He is a salesman, probably one of the best.
That's not necessarily a criticism, more of an observation.And Biden is not hitting on all cylinders.
So, 1+1=1
-
wrote on 21 Sept 2020, 13:14 last edited by
