Interesting debate. Dated, but useful in historical sense.
This Firing Line Debate was not what I hoped it would be. First, WFB Jr takes almost a backseat in the discussions. The apporach to the debates in the '90s is to have 4 versus 4 with equal time to debate and represent their cases. Very balanced, very democratic. Because there are 4 on 4, each person has less time to talk and thoroughly get into discussion about topics. As a result, people are speaking hurriedly and often punctuate their points by giving minispeeches either while answering and sometimes while questioning their opponents. Because the opposition has less time to address what's being said, they find themselves forced to interrupt. Instead of a strong civil discussion, you have something which is much more contemporary (and undesirable to many) which is a lot of loud crosstalking instead of listening and responding. This is a universal criticism of this debate format for all of the debates I've seen from this period.
The debate over this issue is more academic...
Click to Editorial Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment