【Native Speaker每日综合训练—41系列】【41-03】文史哲 debate

ffffionabear

内容：Fffffionabear 编辑：Fffffionabear

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

公益申请名额，每月一名

因为···老娘晚上居然还要回去加班~~！！！没！天！理！啊~~所以提早放了见谅么么哒~~

在王自如和罗胖的“辩论”中到底谁是赢家（额••••如果称得上是辩论的话），他们的辩论有意义么，让观众或者各自得到了什么新观点么（╭(╯^╰)╮你闭嘴，你被包养了~~我们是一个创业初期的团队无限循环）~~本期节目带你走进“悲伤的辩论”：

Speaker告诉你为什么我们辩论的越多失去的越多→_→放大对立性，歼灭合作、协商等等可能~~
Speed以总统辩论为例告诉你辩论不是“game-changer”
Obstacle跟你探讨辩论的意义（为啥说由Fox举办的辩论中最大的loser是Fox和其主持人Chris **）

Part I: Speaker

For argument’s sake
Source: TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake/transcript?language=en
[Rephrase 1, 9:23]

ffffionabear

Part II: Speed

The presidential debate myth: not the 'game-changer' you might think
The Romney team talks up how the televised debates can turn his campaign around. The odd zinger aside, history suggests not

[Time 2]
Quick: name the most memorable moment from the three presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain?

Nothing coming to mind? (And no, Sarah Palin saying "you betcha" in the vice-presidential debate doesn't count.)

How about the 2004 debates between John Kerry and George W Bush? Well, there was that line about a "global test" and then that great internet rumor that Bush had a radio receiver on his back. But anything else ring a bell?

This isn't just a memory test for Guardian readers – it's a perhaps less-than-subtle reminder that even though presidential debates are often viewed as the most important part of a campaign (aside from the national conventions), they actually affect the final election results a lot less than you might think. If Mitt Romney is hoping that the debates turn the tide in what is an ever-widening polling gap between him and Barack Obama, he might want to think again.
The idea of debates being a less consequential campaign event will likely seem counter-intuitive to many. For weeks, these TV setpieces have been hyped as the signal events of the fall campaign. And doesn't history provide many lessons of game-changing debate moments?

Was it not Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow that doomed him against the much smoother John F Kennedy in 1960? Or what about Ronald Reagan's famous quip in 1984, when asked if he was too old to be president:"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's (Walter Mondale) youth and inexperience."
[260 words]

[Time 3]
Or what about Michael Dukakis's robotic response to a query about whether he would still oppose the death penalty for a rapist-killer if his wife, Kitty, had been the victim?

These are just the sort of game-changing moments that allow the Romney campaign a flicker of hope.

But not so fast. While political pundits love to impart great meaning and importance to these events, political scientists aren't so convinced. As John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, wrote recently in Washington Monthly:"Scholars who have looked most carefully at the data have found that, when it comes to shifting enough votes to decide the outcome of the election, presidential debates have rarely, if ever, mattered … in the average election year, you can accurately predict where the race will stand after the debates by knowing the state of the race before the debates."

Debate gaffes, like your garden-variety campaign gaffes, rarely, if ever, move public opinion polls or affect the final outcome of elections. Even if Dukakis had given a more emotional response to the death penalty question, or if George Bush hadn't been caught checking his watchduring the 1992 debate, both candidates were still likely to lose.

Reagan's zinger against Mondale was highly effective, but incumbents who win 49 states don't need a great debate line to ride to victory.

The first of two possible exceptions to the general rule of debate irrelevance is the 1980 debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, which came only days before the election. While Reagan held a small lead going into the debate, by the weekend before election day, polls showed him approaching a landslide-like advantage. The debate, rather than "changing the game", simply confirmed the direction the polls were already headed – albeit in a decisive manner.
[296 words]

[Time 4]
Reagan, who was regularly portrayed by Carter in the most negative terms imaginable and, in particular, as a war-monger, came across as cool, calm and collected – anything but a loose cannon. If Americans needed reassurance that they could trust Reagan in the White House, the debate clinched it.

In 2000, Al Gore's constant sighing during his first presidential debate with George W Bush turned him into an object of ridicule (even Saturday Night Live poked fun at Gore's tic). According to Sides, Gore's unfortunate show of contemptuous impatience may have shifted the polls by two to three points in sympathy with his opponent, Bush. Considering the narrowness of Gore's eventual "defeat", the debate could be considered one of several decisive factors.

But for those two examples, there is always the experience of John Kerry, who, in 2004, won not one, not two, but all three presidential debates against George W Bush, according to post debate polling – and still lost the election. Quite simply, Kerry's strong performance couldn't cancel out the advantages of his opponent. Or, still more importantly, while the debates gave him a boost in the polls, they didn't have the effect of fundamentally reversing the trajectory of the race. This is perhaps the most important factor: debates might affect the polls around the margins, but they have never had a seismic impact on a presidential campaign.
[228 words]

[Time 5]
And this brings us back to Mitt Romney. If the latest public opinion polls are to be believed, the Romney campaign is in serious and deepening trouble. Not only is he trailing in the national polls, but he is also losing badly in swing state polls from Ohio, Virginia and Florida, each of which suggests that Obama is opening up sizable, even insurmountable, leads.

No matter how well Romney does in his debates with Obama, what reason is there to believe that he can do well enough to reverse this increasingly dire trend? Have any actions to date by the gaffe-tastic Romney given credence to the notion that he has the political chops to change the direction of the race in these debates? If anything, because of his now almost daily faux pas, even the smallest slip-up has the potential to dominate post debate coverage. The guy is practically going to have to bat 1,000, just to eke out a win.
[161 words]

[Time 6]
Moreover, it's not all about Romney. There is even less reason to believe that Barack Obama will make a mistake so grievous and costly that he will open the door to a Romney comeback. There's a reason, after all, people call him "no-drama Obama".

Unless the president uses the debate to unleash a profanity-laced diatribe against the people of Ohio and Florida, it's very hard to imagine anything he could do or say that would badly hurt him. To be honest, even if he were, inexplicably, to do such a thing, I'm not convinced it would cost him the election. Considering the current polarization of the electorate and the dearth of undecided voters – short of Obama's breaking out the legendary "whitey" tape, or admitting that, yes, he was born in Kenya – he's likely safe.

None of this is to suggest that voters shouldn't tune in to the debates. They are an excellent opportunity to more fully appreciate the positions of the two candidates and understand the rather profound differences between the two parties. Just don't expect it to make much of a difference in a race where the outlines of the final results are becoming increasingly clear.
[197 words]
Source: The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/presidential-debate-myth-gamechanger

ffffionabear

Part III: Obstacle

Debate's Biggest Loser? Chris *and Fox
By C. Edmund Wright

[Paraphrase 7]
While there seems to be some debate over who won the Republican debate in Ames, Iowa, there seems to be consensus on who lost: Fox News in general and Chris specifically.  In the mind of many conservatives, the Fox questioners did their best MSNBC impersonations by peppering the candidates with tough yet mostly meaningless irrelevancies.  Folks are asking what good are tough questions if they are meaningless?  I submit they are of no use at all.

Which brings up another question: what is the point of a debate anyway?  Or an interview for that matter?  The point should be to shed light on who might make a good President.  But that's not what motivates the media in these events.  The typical debate or interview question is all about the interviewer trying to make himself or herself look good by putting the candidate in an awkward situation.  The media, and many Americans, have been lulled to sleep under the ridiculous assumption that debates and interviews should be all about who can navigate the awkward moment the best.  They should not.

Now let me hastily add that handling awkward situations is part of the skill set necessary in any leader.  But I submit it is only a small part.  Leaders, including Presidents, are normally in control of situations.  This is especially true in the early days of their administration when they have a wave of support and often a somewhat compliant Congress.  What we need from our questioners is more light shed on what vision the candidate has for the country and how he/she will implement that vision while they are in control.

Our economy is dead because of the policies Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi implemented while they were firmly in control.  Osama Bin Laden is dead because of decisions made by Bush and Cheney while they were firmly in control -- even thought it took years for those decisions to bear fruit.  The point is this: what a President will do while in control has exponentially more impact than how a President reacts to an awkward question.

Vetting this control dynamic is especially helpful during the primary process.  Primary voters in a party out of power are aching for the person who best understands what is wrong with the party in power and who can best lead a turn around of the problems that party has created.  They are not served by an arrogant Chris ** asking a question in August based on a question ** himself asked in May.  The obsession the Fox team had with their own prior interviews was nauseating, unsettling and frankly childish.

And memo to the normally reasonable Byron York: that question about Michelle Bachmann and her husband and the Biblical passage of marital submission?  Really?  Why don't you ask someone about Constitutional Submission?

Of course, shedding relevant light is not the media template.  To the media figure, questions that do that might seem like softball questions and they would reflect poorly on the journalist.  Well fine.  Presidential debates are not about the journalists' reputations.  At least they shouldn't be.

Perhaps it is time to totally rethink some debate assumptions, at least from the party standpoint during the primary process.  The Jurassic media is really not a necessary ingredient in this process in this day of the new media and the social media.  Engaged primary voters, who are the entire ballgame at this juncture, are easily able to follow the candidates through talk radio and the internet -- including the social media.

In other words, there likely are not legions of Republican primary voter in the country who care a whit what Chris  thinks.  After last night, many will not be particularly interested in what Bret Baier or Byron York think either.  Neither the candidates nor the voters need these people, and if they are not going to add anything to the process, they should be jettisoned.
Why not have folks like say, Mark Levin and Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter ask the questions?  Admit it, that would be a fun night and at the end of two hours, you would have a great idea on which candidate or candidates would be Barack Obama's worst nightmare and the free enterprise system's dream come true.  And isn't that the point of the primary process?

I submit that it is.  It is time for some outside the box thinking.  RNC, are you listening?  (Wait, don't answer that).

Actually, there was a clear winner last night -- and it was the man who has run the absolute worst campaign up to this point.  Newt Gingrich scored huge points when he humiliated Chiris over the "gotcha" questions.  Whether or not Gingrich was just frustrated or whether he was prescient enough to know and understand that our misguided media own much of the blame for the mass elections of incompetents is unclear.

The fact remains that he nailed an absolute hot button with frustrated voters when he shamed Chris.  And Herman Cain also scored when he was incredulous that any thinking adult actually wondered if Cain were serious about an alligator and moat comment weeks earlier and Mitt Romney scored when he refused to accept a questioner's premise and stated he would "not eat President Obama's dogfood."

The lesson is clear.  The mainstream media -- and Fox is getting more and more mainstream every day -- is not the friend of the Republican primary voter.  They add nothing to the process.  Any candidate who will show his or her mettle by calling them out for their ridiculous practices will score big.  As it should be.
[938 words]
Source: Amercian Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/debates_biggest_loser_chris_**_and_fox.html

Yeezy

掌管 5        00:00:58.89        00:06:25.26
掌管 4        00:00:47.44        00:05:26.37
掌管 3        00:01:17.25        00:04:38.93
掌管 2        00:01:38.20        00:03:21.67
掌管 1        00:01:43.47        00:01:43.47
Obstacle:5'15"
The Fox and Chris are tend to be Republican. The debator who put the other to embarassment more, the more likely he will win. The fox add nothing to the debate.

菜农人民

Time2 3:22
Time3 3:58
Time4 2:51
Time5 2:30
Time6 3:07

好久不练果然越来越烂了·····

太阳雪203

居然占到了前排~~

Time 2-1'40[260 words]
The debate is not as important as you thought before.

Time 3-1'53[296 words]
The debate is irrelevant of the election outcome.
Two exceptions existed.

Time 4-1'29[228 words]
Some examples show that debates might only affect the poll at margins in the presidents campaign.

Time 5-0'57[161 words]
Only debate does not help with the reverse the actual trend.

Time 6-1'06[197 words]
Do not give much expectation on the power of the debate.

小蘑菇开始打怪

谢谢fiona~~~
-----------

speaker:

three models of argument

war, proof, performance

learning=losing?

it is a good argument at the end

time7:

the point of debate? awkward situation>good to be president

vision to the country, what to do when in control

mainstream media do nothing to the process

KKCarpeDiem

1.45 2.30 1.54 1.02 1.21

文史类读起来理解不够啊…

洋沫沫

2:  2'47
3:  2'42
4: 2'04
5: 1'05
6:1'42

Obstacle:
10'22

Fox's debate is meaningless. it is a shame for Chirs and Fox.
because people want to find a candidate who can do good while in control, not how to react to an awkward question.
so the debate should help primary voters to know the candidates.
however the debate is ridiculous, and any candidates who humilates Chris or refuse to answer these meaningless question can get scored.

overall, it dosen't help republican candidates.

cherry6891

thanks~~F妹妹

41-03
Time2
Give examples of memorable moment of presidential debates
Time3
Presidential result has not so much relationship with debate performance and then set several example
Time4
Debate might effect the polls around the margin but can not have seismic impact on a president campaign
Time5-6
Deep analysis of the president compete of O and R
Obstacle
First start with the questions two media asked in the presidential debate. What is the point of debate? Perfect reacting to the media does not mean he can be a good president. It is time to rethink debate assumptions to decide what we should ask during primary voter