You almost never get the pleasure of seeing that you won the argument in real time. People just don't like to publicly change their minds. They change their minds in private.
Unfortunately, public debates do not have much room for subtlety. The audience wants a quick thrust at your opponent, not a slow and convoluted series of moves. Whenever Obama uses subtleties in discussing a complex issue, he gets creamed.
I've always said this and finally I had a chance to demonstrate it: The moderator should be seen little and heard even less. It is up to the candidates to ask the follow-up questions and challenge one another.
John Kerry says that he wants to debate President Bush once a month until the election. This could be a risky move for Senator Kerry. If Bush doesn't show up for the debates, John Kerry may end up debating an empty chair. And that could be pretty much a toss up as to which one has the better personality.
The essence of debate in Parliament is spontaneous.
The very man who has argued you down, will sometimes be found, years later, to have been influenced by what you said
The real dynamic is that when Greens are in the debates, Conservatives don't do as well.
In a body [Congress] where there are more than one hundred talking lawyers ...you can make no calculation upon the termination of any debate and frequently the more trifling the subject the more animated and protracted the discussion
Men argue. Nature acts.
A debate actually is a policy issue but I will say this - gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage.
Godwin's law states that the longer any online debate goes on, the likelier it is that someone will play the Nazi card. It's the rhetorical equivalent of going nuclear and stupid at the same time.
When you are interviewing someone, you have a chance to follow up, to press, to dig in. In a debate there's 30 seconds for the other guy, too. And the goal is to get them to engage with each other, not to engage you necessarily.
