Ongoing #6

Final preparations underway for Republican debate

The best theory I currently have is that Americans perhaps aren't fully understanding the purpose of debate. Firstly, they are meant to help people find which candidate they like the best, not which they hate the most. Secondly, debates are intended to move the conversation forward, not reinforce tired rhetoric to the kind of crazies that would go to Republican Debate 5937 (it's somewhere around there) and don't recognise pandering when they see it. Thirdly, they are at some point meant to stop.

Even if one person involved in the entire process were to be convinced away from their views, it would keep what they are pretending these events are (a discussion of the issues) from being quite so laughable. But rather than the candidates convincing the audience of a point using reason, these debates seem to be a "who can say the worst things about Obama and get terrifying Neanderthal-like yells and whoops in response" contest where the crowd let the speakers know just which viewpoints they are supposed to have.

In the UK we use debate in what seems like a far more flexible manner - that is, that there is vaguely the chance of winning anyone over to your logic, or indeed it being pointed out how flawed yours is and everyone getting past it, to the next question and trying to solve that one together too. Sorry, did I say "UK"? I meant to say "Fairy Fucking Pixie Land". But even us British don't seem as set in our ways as the people at these Republican debates. As a result it's hard to believe anything that the debaters are going to say as they are so well-trained on the cookie-cutter anti-liberal party lines required to pass - or as it's also called, "not be shot on the way out".

This seems to mean that the main place from which you should discard what a presidential hopeful said is the place they are meant to be using responsible and reasoned argument. How bad of an omen is it if I find this behaviour untrustworthy before so much as getting to the content of what they are saying?

Golden Globes: Ricky Gervais 'subdued', say critics

Is a non-event newsworthy? Does an occurrence that never occurred become worth talking about if the mere mention of it not occurring sets back hair up on end, on both sides of the topic? It's like that time the BBC reported that the "fifth night of rioting was avoided". So, you mean the rioting stopped? You can't call it the fifth night of rioting if there were only four nights of rioting; it was simply the end of the rioting.

And look, "oops!", they let their paedophile clown out at the party again but dammit; not one rape. Maybe he wasn't that horny after last year's castration or perhaps everyone knew that they couldn't get away with pretend controversy again so decided to put in as little effort as possible because whoever was going to watch would be watching regardless. Damned if you do, slammed if you don't. Still doesn't feel "newsy".