Proposal for format for TV debates

Dilisk

In this post, I propose a format for television debates between two people.
It was devised for political debates, such as those pitting party leaders
against each other at election time, but should be useful for other kinds of
debates. It makes it impossible for debaters to interrupt each other, which
allows each debater much more scope to develop his points.

It works as follows. The programme has no presenter -- nobody appears but
the debaters.

Each debater sits in a room by himself. He can hear the other debater but
can't see him.

Each debater has a fixed allowance of time: one half of the programme's
duration.

One debater has to speak first, of course. The choice of first speaker is
made well before the start of the programme, allowing the debaters to
prepare while knowing who goes first.

The first speaker speaks for as long as he likes (subject to his time
allocation). He then presses a button to hand over to the other speaker.

The other speaker then speaks for as long as he likes. When finished, he
presses a button to hand over to his opponent.

This continues until both speakers have used up all their time.

While a debater is speaking, the technology ensures that he can't hear his
opponent. This is to prevent the opponent from disrupting his thought
processes.

What the viewer of the programme sees, at all times, is the current speaker,
speaking to camera. If the viewer could see both debaters, the one not
speaking would be constrained to look "presidential" or "prime-ministerial",
thus losing the opportunity to jot down notes, or perform some other
activity that would assist his performance.

In general, I expect that each debate will have a topic; for example, the
economy, crime, or the EU. However, if a speaker departs from the topic,
there is no moderator to bring him into line. I don't view this as a
problem. If a debater departs from the topic, the viewers can draw their
own conclusions about why he did so.

Elmo

you could have a presenter ask the questions

A speaker could filibuster/obstruct by talking at length about the 1 topic and leaving their opponent to try to debate the rest on their own.

In terms of GE debates we will have 7 speakers at times particularly for leaders debates.

I would like to see 15 debates in the run up to the general election for each gov minister.

Labour minister with FG jr minister (and visaversa), FF and SF spokespeople and one open rotating seat for other parties/non-party

Dilisk

Elmo wrote: »

you could have a presenter ask the questions

There wouldn't be any questions (unless the debaters put questions to each
other, which is perfectly legitimate, and probably a good debating tactic
too).

Elmo wrote: »

A speaker could filibuster/obstruct by talking at length about the 1 topic and leaving their opponent to try to debate the rest on their own.

From the viewer's point of view (and it's the viewer I care about here), I
see no problem. If one speaker uses up all of his time in
his first contribution, then the other speaker will have the rest of the
programme to himself and will be able to dissect his opponent's
contribution at length, without any possibility of reply.

As for filibustering and obstructing: they are impossible in this debate
format, because each debater has a fixed amount of time.

Elmo wrote: »

In terms of GE debates we will have 7 speakers at times particularly for leaders debates.

Yes, this is something of a weakness in my idea. The more speakers there
are, the less well it works, because, if we assume that "control" is handed
on in rotation, then a speaker who has been attacked (or whose policies have
been attacked) may have to wait a long time to make his reply.

Elmo

If one speaker knows their opponent can only speak for so long they can techincally filibuster/obstruct

I think you might end up with a very dry debate lacking humour and human interaction.

qweerty

That style is not too dissimilar to Leaders' Questions, where it allows Kenny to interpret the question as he likes and go off topic without reproach. And that mightn't be a bad thing if the general public were good judges of debate, and could interpret incompetence from that. But I have found them to be startlingly lacking in that regard. For that reason, I think a moderator is always required. I would expect that the structure proposed would lead to very dull and rambling debates in the short term, and to maddening deceit and spin in the long term, as politicians develop strategies to cynically manipulate the format.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

That style is not too dissimilar to Leaders' Questions, where it allows Kenny to interpret the question as he likes and go off topic without reproach.

OTT do government ministers get warned over Points of Order? I have never see it, when a minister fails to answer a question or starts taking about the man on the street they met that said that blah blah blah.

They should have a Boards.ie debate moderated by Boards Mods, only those debating can reply. If they rant or call names the mods can ban them.

L1011

Elmo wrote: »

I would like to see 15 debates in the run up to the general election for each gov minister.

Labour minister with FG jr minister (and visaversa), FF and SF spokespeople and one open rotating seat for other parties/non-party

Biggest problem with that is that you will find that for probably half the ministries they'll end up being held by none of the people on the show.

Elmo

L1011 wrote: »

Biggest problem with that is that you will find that for probably half the ministries they'll end up being held by none of the people on the show.

The same is true for leaders debates.

Joan won't be leader of labour
Micheal won't be leader of FF
Gerry will go in 2017

qweerty

L1011 wrote: »

Biggest problem with that is that you will find that for probably half the ministries they'll end up being held by none of the people on the show.

I don't think that especially matters in itself: the purpose is to gauge the policies, rather than the ministers. And it would compel parties to formulate policies across the portfolios. Fringe portfolios (a majority) would attract graveyard ratings, though.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

I don't think that especially matters in itself: the purpose is to gauge the policies, rather than the ministers. And it would compel parties to formulate policies across the portfolios. Fringe portfolios (a majority) would attract graveyard ratings, though.

Shouldn't just be about ratings. And will also be important for local voters to see how their man or woman is doing in the dail. I imagine that a fringe portfolio would do well if it has a well liked or disliked minister.