Actually I have interest in this subject since it is by far the most relevant
subject for those living in Mexico. My other primary interest is in communication
and the formats which either accomplish or fail to accomplish that.
Here are a few (un edited) notes I did this early morning (just for myself)
about the debate format and what happened in the 2 hours I spent watching it.
I don't think they would fit the category of boredom but you be the
judge if you care to,it may more of a read than you may be into.
--------------
Ran across a link to a War on Drugs debate which was completed live but is
now just a video of the past live event, turns out to be fairly enjoyable
and interesting.
I wanted more information about a couple of the speakers so I put the query -
Versus War on Drugs Debate - into Google. I see a bunch of people writing about
the event. I got confused as to who was responsible for the video, Google Plus
(heard of that before) Intelligence squared (never heard of that) or Versus
(never heard of that) and couldn't find a web page listing the speakers. WTF?.
Finally got to this page - http://www.youtube.com/user/versusdebates then
finally figured out to clink on the Verusus Debates link which took me
to this page where it had a scrollable listing of who was for and against
ending the war and some information about each person. Feels like I am
getting some place. I click on a link titled The Speakers and the page it
goes to never loads, finally figure out that is what I am already looking at.
No information about when the debate took place, or where. Very little information
which is normally supplied by a web page, or do I have to join Google + to get that?
One thing that I wanted to research was this panel member who spoke of
children 12 years old addicted to crack and newly married people killing
their existing children to get rid of old baggage in the new relationship.
I had to search the video to get the guy's name, turns out to be Ed Vulliamy,
it was more work than it needed to be to find that information.
It would have been nice to be able to click on a particular participant
and have links to each part of the video that person appears. It would
also be nice to have a transcript of the entire debate. If the desire is
to have communication then the topic has to be broken down into its
individual parts and discussed. It seems the tendency is to have a
debate like this and not fully discuss each point and to move on to the next
discussion or article about the War on Drugs. That is not the best way
to break down a discussion and come to a conclusion, it takes time
and effort to talk about each issue.
I finally found a web page by Neuro Bonkers that gave an easy to read list
of the participants and some transcripts of the important parts. Seems to
me that would be the responsibility of the people who put on the debate,
still not sure if that was Intelligence squared, Versus or Google plus.
http://neurobonkers.com/
Portugal came up a couple times each using different statistics to
make their point. Statistics are famous for creating desired results
and this in and of itself needs to be resolved as a different topic of discussion.
For the time being there has to be some kind of middle ground, there are
results from Portugal's decriminalization, probably both good and bad,
its really the experience of those living in Portugal that matters perhaps
it should be they we listen to.
I think the live format is very limiting in that there is only so much time
to cover a lot of material.
There was too much time and attention given to who changed their minds
by the discussion, forming opinions comes from gathering information
over time, who changed their mind due to this one discussion is not really
important information.
I am wondering if it is possible to find a way for each participant to
respond to each point made. One panel member makes a statement and I
have the option to get the response of each participant to that particular
statement. I know this would seriously slow things down but if it made
the discussion more in depth, if it led to more persons being better
informed in an entertaining way then it would be fulfilling the goal of
transfer of information between persons.
Notes:
I have my personal opinions about different speakers and about the
topic but they are not important, what I want to discuss is the format
of the debate and its success or failure in the exchange of information.
Certainly a lot of effort was put into getting the panel members and to
schedule those "hanging out" to all be present at one particular time.
Can the format be improved?
I am not particularly found of debates as a way of communication or learning,
but they have potential if correctly moderated, if the participants behave
with common courtesy and stay on topic. Moderators and positioners
of points are needed to keep the conversation
flowing but truth be told
we all have opinions and the opinions of the
moderator will always show
up in who is and who is not called on to speak.
Also when someone ask another a question and then cuts them off right when
they are making their point, because they don't like the point they are making,
case in point is when Elliot Spitzer cuts off Ed Vulliamy (at 32:55)
.
In particular was (at 41:40) when Russel Crow was criticized for wearing a hat
buy Peter Hitchens who was in the audience (why did they all of a sudden go
to him anyway? ) then Russel Crow started ranting and name calling and the
debate seemed like it was going to turn into a Bill Oriely event. I assume
Russel Crow then left the discussion because I did not see him in the lower
part of the screen (where the people hanging out are seen) any more.
Russel would have done better with a more measured / accurate response,
he has the moral high ground if you'll pardon the pun, he gives validity to
a person (Peter Hitchens) who is totally out of touch with the real world.
They call people who are participating in the discussion via Internet
(but not speaking at the time) as hanging out. That may be a term popular
with those who are used to things like Internet chat but in my opinion they
are not hanging out, they are listening with the hopes that the moderator
or another participant will allow them to say what they want to say.
Hanging out is a terrible term, part of the idea of the discussion is to have
it be (as close to possible) like everyone in the same room, there is no
need to point out or emphasize that someone is not physically there,
just speak to them as if they are.
When someone in the room calls on someone who is "hanging out" they look up
and around as if summoning the Lord or something, asking are you there?
That was weird.
What is with the bottles of water? Each person is framed by them, they huge
and are literally everywhere, is this some kind of product placement?
What is with the moderators ear? I think it is the weight of her mike
attached to her ear lobe that is pulling it down and out making it look strange.
At 1:40:50 President Fox, for example, had more to say but was cut off by
Geoffery Robertson (I think), I was amazed that a person with his status and
history in the drug war was not given more time. It is true that President Fox
did not answer the question (which was about how the discussion was going)
and simply made a point he wanted to make.
The closing arguments were not really necessary, those were statements prepared
in advance and not really a result of the discussion. In particular
when Elliot Spitzer was asking X if controlling the level of THC in marijuana
would not create a black market (what legalization was supposed to fix)
he gave him a yes or no parameter and then cut him off as if he were in a
court room, quite the turn off and that kind of questioning has no (or very little)
place in a debate, especially when performed as Spitzer did it. That whole
lawyer courtroom format sucks.
|
