The Soft Lounge Blog

Philosophy: Fun With Debate Answers!

October 9th, 2008 | by Frank |

First I’d like to note that apparently someone told Senator Obama about my blog post because he too has started calling “John” Senator McCain.  So clearly-this blog rocks.

Secondly-I have a problem voting for a candidate that cannot understand the concept of “one minute.”  So double party foul there boys. 

Lastly-want to get a look-see as to what happens in my classroom?  How about a peek into the lesson plan where we took Tuesday night’s debate, took the responses to a question and went through them to see how well they were answered? 

See the focus of my class is Reason and Argument-or how to write a good argument.  Theoretically the answer to a debate question would be an argument of some sort.  “What do you think of X and why?” should be answered “I think this of X” (which would be the conclusion) “and this is why” (which would make up the premises.  As my kids are finally getting a handle on the old Premise and Conclusion train-and that it was time to look at longer more complex arguments anyway-I thought “well why not take a peek at just what constitutes an argument these days on TV?” 

If nothing else I have begun to plant the seeds in my students minds that it is a problem when it really appears that Politicians say nothing.  As an independent voice of reason, I can do that.

Care to play along?

The transcript can be found here and we’ll just look at the first question asked which is:

“With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?”

So the answer should read “The fastest, most positive solution to bail out these people is X and here is why.”  Now I would take issue with what “positive solution” means-biggest effect?  Most People affected?  Happiest?  Smiliest? But let’s just say he used the word “best” or something, for now. 

Now since this is gonna take some space to do, I’m gonna put a jump here-if you want to follow along  you’ll have to click through. 

Senator Obama answered first.  In my class we cross out anything that isn’t important to the argument, we underline premises and circle conclusions.  Here, on the blog I’ll highlight the conclusion (if it actually ever appears) instead-and I’ll explain what I’m doing in bold red as I go along and why: 

PS: Quick note-if you think at anytime I’m being “picky” or that “of course I should know what that means” remember-voting isn’t for people with PHDs it’s for everyone.  A candidate should be responsible for answering the question on a level anyone can understand-not just people with economics degrees that could maybe put the dots together. 

Obama: Well, Alan (ph), thank you very much for the question. I want to first, obviously, thank Belmont University, Tom, thank you, and to all of you who are participating tonight and those of you who sent e-mail questions in. All Lovely Stuff, But Clearly not Important to the question.

I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college. To which all my Democrat friends are saying “How can you cross that out?  It’s important!” Maybe to understand the context of the question-or to relate to the question asker-but he isn’t answer the question yet.  It’s just background. We already know there is a problem Senator, we are asking what the solution is.

And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.  Oooh a partisan slam?  Yes.  An answer yet?  No.

It hasn’t worked out that way. And so now we’ve got to take some decisive action.  Still not an argument, but that sounds encouraging, right?  Here comes our decisive action!

Now, step one was a rescue package that was passed last week. We’ve got to make sure that works properly. And that means strong oversight, making sure that investors, taxpayers are getting their money back and treated as investors.

Okay well that’s starting to sound like a plan anyway.  I guess we could say that Rescue Package + Taking steps to ensure it works properly (i.e. oversight and taxpayers being treated as investors) is part one of the plan.  Doesn’t really explain how this makes it faster or more positive-but let’s cut him some slack for now.

It means that we are cracking down on CEOs and making sure that they’re not getting bonuses or golden parachutes as a consequence of this package. And, in fact, we just found out that AIG, a company that got a bailout, just a week after they got help went on a $400,000 junket.  First of all “junket” is first defined as a type of pastry-which I like the idea of the AIG guys blowing $400k on dessert-but I digress.  This is just an example of bad oversight.  So while it underscores the need for oversight it doesn’t really add anything new.  A much better use of time would be to explain how the bailout along with the oversight etc. was going to actually help the people described in the question. 

And I’ll tell you what, the Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired. But that’s only step one. The middle-class need a rescue package. And that means tax cuts for the middle-class.  Again, I’m going to be genereous here and say that Middle Class Tax cuts are going to be step two.   He doesn’t really how this helps folks-is it as simple as paying less taxes=more money in your pocket?  And is having more money in your pocket the same thing has fixing the financial crisis?  What if everyone has more money in their pocket-don’t prices go up and we are just back where we started?  And how does this works with step one where we as tax payers just spent a lot of money to bail Wall St. out?  A bridge statement here would have been helpful or at least something to tie it back to the question.  

It means help for homeowners so that they can stay in their homes. Why?  How?  It means that we are helping state and local governments set up road projects and bridge projects that keep people in their jobs.  Again, Why?  How?  I’ll accept that these support the reasons for a taxcut for the middle class-that these might be results of a tax cut-but how do they help?  How do homeowners stay in their home because of a middle class tax cut and how in turn does that help get them out of trouble financially…or is he being sneaky because it would actually be a result of getting out of trouble financially!  Oh Senator Obama!  You’re trying to lull us to sleep here with fairy-tales about how great it will be when we are free of our financial woes without actually saying how you are going to do it! 

And then long-term we’ve got to fix our health care system, we’ve got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. Okay so long term, or step 3, is to fix health care and the energy system.  Great.   Why?  I guess I can suppose that ”fixing the energy system” would be some sort of way to make energy cheaper-that might help.  But how?  Connect the dots for me Senator!  Same with Health Care!  That second part about “enormous burdens” is just emotional rhetoric, not part of the argument.  You need somebody working for you and you’ve got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.  More “vote for me crap”-no actual answer here.  It is at the end though so not such a big deal.

So I guess we could rewrite all of this as such (My Interspersed Language is in Red):

The fastest and most positive way to help out those citizens affected by this economic down turn is a three part process. Step one was a rescue package that was passed last week. We’ve got to make sure that works properly. And that means strong oversight, making sure that investors, taxpayers are getting their money back and treated as investors.  Step Two is that The middle-class need a rescue package. And that means tax cuts for the middle-class.  It means help for homeowners so that they can stay in their homes. It means that we are helping state and local governments set up road projects and bridge projects that keep people in their jobs.  Lastly, long-term we’ve got to fix our health care system, we’ve got to fix our energy system.

As an answer it is terrible.  It doesn’t really address the question at all-what makes it fast?  what makes it “more positive?”  how are these things even linked to fixing the economic downturn-and how are they specifically going to help “retirees, senior citizens and workers?” 

Now before my liberal friends forget their pacifist ways and come after me with pitchforks for ripping apart the answer given by “the second coming” himself-let’s look at Senator McCain’s answer.  And just to show what a swell guy I am I’ll now put my comments in bold blue.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, thank you, Tom. Thank you, Belmont University. And Sen. Obama, it’s good to be with you at a town hall meeting.

And, Alan (ph), thank you for your question. You go to the heart of America’s worries tonight. Americans are angry, they’re upset, and they’re a little fearful. It’s our job to fix the problem.  Well more thanking people, which while nice and all isn’t important here.  Also some more reframing-just like Senator Obama notice how McCain is using this as an opportunity to identify with the questioner and to gently steer the question away from “what is going to help” to just “how to fix the problem.”

Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t want us very — like us very much. We have to keep Americans’ taxes low. All Americans’ taxes low. Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today.  One thing McCain does here is get to something that resembles an answer quicker.  So we stop spending money on energy from other countries (or at least I’m going to guess that’s what he meant by “stop sending $700 billion to other countries”) and keep that money for ourselves?  Well that does put more money in the US pocket-and I can see how Energy Independence would help with that-but how does that help the US taxpayer?  Further-what does that have to do with keeping taxes low for everybody?  The same problem as when Obama said it above-how does me paying less taxes help with the bailout and further if everyone has more money in their pocket doesn’t that just push prices on everything up? 

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that’s going on in Washington. Wait there was a spree?  What did they buy? Do you know that we’ve laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?  Senator-Questions are not claims.  If you want to say “we have a 10 trillion dollar debt, 500 billion of which we owe to China” just come out and say so-your “asking a question” leaves way too much wiggle room.  Further it is not just on the young people, or the young people in the room-it is on everyone.   So don’t get cute with me, Senator-just stick to the damn answer.  I am going to, again, be generous and say that the first sentence is a premise in support of the argument that stopping wasteful spending could help-and the second sentence (could have been) supportive evidence for that.  I’ll rewrite it below.   

We’ve got to have a package of reforms for?  Government spending?  What?  and it has got to lead to reform prosperity what is that?  and peace in the world.  Peace in the world? Senator, I have a follow up question.  Just what the #$##@ are you talking about now?  Aren’t we talking about economic revitalization and how that is going to help the average American?  I like world peace as much as the next person but I’m having trouble following you. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we’re going to have to do something about home values.  This whole paragraph is very vague.  Lot’s of non-obvious, undefined terms. I wonder what “home values” are.  I would think the financial value of a home but given that “world peace” some how figures into this equation he could also mean home values-or family values or some such nonsense.  At best “reforms” are part of the curbing government spending so I give the whole thing a cross out. 

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. Okay so he did mean “the financial value of a home.” As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.  Well Holy Cow that sounds like a plan-not only that but it directly communicates how his course of action is going to affect an average American.  People who cannot afford a mortgage that is out of whack with the value of their property will have it bought by the US and then resold (or renegotiated) to them at a rate that is reasonable.  Bravo, Senator-those are the most cohesive sentences thus far.  Still are problems though-that sounds like the US is taking a big hit financially by doing that-how is that going to be paid for?  If taxes aren’t being raised can we be sure that the US can afford to do that?  And if the problem originally with the housing market was that banks were paying too much for homes why does it make it any better that the Government will be paying too much for loans?  Those would be nice questions to answer about this proposal right here.   

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know-This is a terrible phrase to use.  If we all know it then you don’t have to say it, do you?  , my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.  I underline this statement only as something to do with the previous part of the argument, but it’s a pretty unfounded statement.  First, I don’t know this so dont’ assume I do.  Second-what does fixing a housing market have to do with creating jobs and fixing the economy?  Why fix that instead of, I don’t know, returning jobs from overseas factories to the US or increasing taxes?  Those seem like other equally viable ways to help fix the economy and I can’t understand (at least from this sentiment only) how come this has to be fixed first?  Or is it, really, you know that everyone wants this fixed first and you’re playing on what people want-not what necessarily is best.

I know how the do that, my friends. And it’s my proposal, it’s not Sen. Obama’s proposal, it’s not President Bush’s proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you.  More Crap.  Blah.

So again, putting it all together (again my words in blue):

My Plan to fix this problem of economic downturn and the affect on regular Americans has got to do with energy independence. We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that supply us with energy. We have to keep Americans’ taxes low. All Americans’ taxes low.  We obviously have to stop this spending spree that’s going on in Washington that has laid a $10 trillion debt -$500 billion of it we owe to China.  I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.  Until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy.

Well I’ll give McCain this-he certainly had at least one concrete idea.  Too bad it was surrounded by vagueness extraordinaire.  His one concrete idea also wasn’t explained any better than Senator Obama’s ideas leaving me with a lot of questions regarding both of their plans.  It also didn’t address the question-of what is fast/positive about the plan.  I’d be hard pressed to pick which answer was better but if one is better it’s only better in the same way that dying of natural causes is better than dying of whooping cough.  Both are pretty shitty ways to go…

Let me switch back to neutral black here.  The real problem, as I see it is this-their time would have been much better spent explaining these two ideas further and/or more completely.  That would of course require more than one minute to answer-which means either getting to less questions or having longer/more debates.  The problem with that?  Doesn’t work well with commercials and TV in general.  Everyone watches the debates and then everyone complains how boring they are.  Of course to get an actual answer would require those same people to sit through longer harder to listen to (actual) arguments which I’m not sure people are willing to do.  They should do-it would do them good IMHO-but they probably won’t. 

But this is what you get when you want sound bites and to flip back over to whatever you were watching before-you get drivel.  Go ahead-pick another question, the same problem exists.  And if you tell me that “well this isn’t what debates are about” I agree-they aren’t.  But they are supposed to be and this how they are characterized.  Really its an opportunity for people to “feel good” about one person or another-not an opportunity to get answers.  And shame on you if that’s good enough, I say.

That’s why I for one barely put any stock into listening to these (I certainly wouldn’t invest my eyes AND ears in this endeavor-just one please) because very little is ever said.  The scary part for me?  Everyone already knows that-and everyone still tunes in and everyone has to watch and everyone still thinks its important-they just can’t say why.  They can’t really say who or why or how this helps them vote…they just know what’s right.  It comes out sounding like one of these candidates answers and apparently since it is good enough for them to make its good enough for Joe Viewer to make too.  Massive reform for Presidential (and all) elections are necessary before you’ll ever get an answer out of any one of these yahoos-or before someone with answers gets to step into the light and be seen. 

This post has gone on long enough though and I’ll save that for another day.