Are You Going to Watch the Debates?

[Lexicus]

They really ought to have each pair of candidates hold their own unmoderated one on one debate.

Wouldn't that mean like hundreds of debates or is my math incorrect

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Have you never read Gulliver's Travels?

I think I read an abridged version when I was <10.

 

[Lexicus]

I think I read an abridged version when I was <10.

The Lilliputians were a tiny race of people encountered by the titular character

 

[Kyriakos]

The Lilliputians were a tiny race of people encountered by the titular character

The book has three more parts: the giants, Laputa and the land of the rational horses.
I read it for the first year of university lit class.

Wouldn't that mean like hundreds of debates or is my math incorrect

Eg if there were four candidates, A,B,C,D, then the (unique; cause A-B is the same as B-A in this case) pairs are:
A-B
A-C
A-D
B-C
B-D
C-D

Ie the formula is [number of candidates] times [number of candidates - 1] and all that divided by 2.
So if the remaining candidates now are 8 (?) then the number of one-on-one debates is 8x7/2= 28. Perhaps a more intuitive way of calculating it is using [number of candidates] + [number of candidates -1] + [number of candidates -2]... until you reach 0: 7+6+5+4+3+2+1= 28. Cause all the candidates get to pair (8), but they get to pair with everyone other than their own self (times 8-1) and the identical pairs are divided to leave only the unique ones (/2).


1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
.
.
.
7-8

Trivia: supposedly this method was organized by Gauss, although not specifically for probability. He just improvised a way (iirc when he was in school) to add large numbers of pairs which tend to form the same total number. Eg if you want to find out how much 1+2+3+4+... 100 is, sure you can add them individually, but if you notice that 1+100= 2+99 = 3+98 and so on, it makes your life easier cause then you have 50 pairs of 101= 5050

 

[Truthy]

Wouldn't that mean like hundreds of debates or is my math incorrect

Yeah lol, n candidates would need n(n - 1)/2 debates

Edit: x-post with Kyriakos

 

[Ajidica]

What I would love to see is all candidates with a sporting chance of winning the nomination (and Andrew Yang because he is funny) stuck in a room for a couple hours with a moderator who knew how to be a moderator rather than trying to start catfights. Allows discussion of issues while weeding out those who can only throw zingers.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah lol, n candidates would need n(n - 1)/2 debates

Wow that was way more concise than all that bs @Kyriakos posted.

J/k Kyr, I love you buddy

BTW I just read today that Yang made the cutoff. I'd missed that somehow.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wow that was way more concise than all that bs @Kyriakos posted.

J/k Kyr, I love you buddy

BTW I just read today that Yang made the cutoff. I'd missed that somehow.

Are you sure you were joking? Maybe you just admire someone giving you a fish, and are content with not having the foggiest idea about where the sea is

 

[Truthy]

Ocean this way:

Spoiler :

Each of the n people needs to debate n - 1 other people. So that's n*(n - 1) debates. But that's double-counting each debate. So divide by 2

(Ok ok I appreciated your tie-in with Gauss and the sum of the first n naturals. Also the number of debates is the number of edges in a complete graph with n nodes. Which is basically what you said. And might like to hear if you're a fan of Euler)

 

[Kyriakos]

Ocean this way:

Spoiler :

Each of the n people needs to debate n - 1 other people. So that's n*(n - 1) debates. But that's double-counting each debate. So divide by 2

(Ok ok I appreciated your tie-in with Gauss and the sum of the first n naturals. Also the number of debates is the number of edges in a complete graph with n nodes. Which is basically what you said. And might like to hear if you're a fan of Euler)

I haven't studied his work that much to have an opinion on the matter. I always liked probability theory, though Russia burned all seven bridges of that dreadful town.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Kirsten Gillibrand dropped out of the race. It's looking like this debate will be a one-night, ten-debaters affair.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What I would love to see is all candidates with a sporting chance of winning the nomination (and Andrew Yang because he is funny) stuck in a room for a couple hours with a moderator who knew how to be a moderator rather than trying to start catfights. Allows discussion of issues while weeding out those who can only throw zingers.

What I'd like to see is a moderator with this policy:

1. Answer anything but question topic or speaking out of turn/interrupting others: interrupt discussion and issue warning
2. Do either of these a 2nd time: mute candidate mic and insta-kick from debate

Debate continues until questions are exhausted or there's only one candidate left. In the latter case the last person standing won the debate without question. If multiple candidates actually participated competently in a debate between adults, then people can decide who won on their own terms.

Fun addition: moderator asks questions that are difficult to answer/present problems where the only solution(s) will be unpopular.

If someone runs a debate this way I would actually watch it, for two reasons. 1) It would stand a decent chance of forcing candidates to take stances on policy issues with concrete actions defined and 2) the amount of salt generated might be enough to kill every fish in the ocean. I realize that this might make debates between Trump + Democrat nominee end in like ten seconds, but that would be worth it and save people a lot of time.

 

[Ajidica]

Answer anything but question topic or speaking out of turn/interrupting others: interrupt discussion and issue warning

That sounds like a terrible idea. Indeed, a straight Q&A seems to me the antithesis of a discussion. We all know politicians can parrot lines back - being able to memorize some stock responses is a job description. We also all know that any issue confronting them as president is going to be too complex to be addressed in a few sentences. Rather, I'd like to see a long, largely uninterrupted discussion (something like this) where we can get a sense of the candidate and determine whether the candidate a) appears human, and b) seems like an intelligent, decent sort.

 

[Kyriakos]

Smuggling insulin from Canada to US might make a pretty good penny ^_^ 1 to 10. Black market insulin.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That sounds like a terrible idea. Indeed, a straight Q&A seems to me the antithesis of a discussion. We all know politicians can parrot lines back - being able to memorize some stock responses is a job description. We also all know that any issue confronting them as president is going to be too complex to be addressed in a few sentences. Rather, I'd like to see a long, largely uninterrupted discussion (something like this) where we can get a sense of the candidate and determine whether the candidate a) appears human, and b) seems like an intelligent, decent sort.

If the moderator asks what specific things the candidate will do to correct health care, a one line answer is valid but is likely to leave viewers unimpressed, and longer answers relevant to the question should be encouraged. Talking about other candidates, oil, war, monetary policy, etc in response to such a question SHOULD afford a conclusion that the candidate is *not* an "intelligent, decent sort". It should also get them a warning/kicked.

Right now, with candidates speaking out of turn and constantly spewing crap irrelevant to the topic makes me actively disrespect them. Yet it's hard to find political candidates that don't do this because debates are structured to be garbage.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The third debate is tonight and it's being hosted by ABC at 8pm EST. It should be easier to find streaming than it was when hosted by CNN. There will only be a single night of debate but it will still feature 10 debaters.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I haven't decided whether I'll watch tonight. Someone on the radio this morning said he expects the debate to focus on Biden, Sanders, and Warren, with the other seven forced to take big swings just to get noticed. Personally, I prefer to see a more substantive debate between fewer people, and I don't expect this to be what I'm looking for.

 

[Lexicus]

On the one hand I would like to see Biden make a fool of himself, on the other I find these things pretty much totally unwatchable so I probably won't be watching. And by probably I mean certainly.

 

[Kyriakos]

On the one hand I would like to see Biden make a fool of himself, on the other I find these things pretty much totally unwatchable so I probably won't be watching. And by probably I mean certainly.

Joe should call it a day. Not even president Maibos endorsed him.

 

[Lexicus]

Honestly, I take it back. Watching Joe is just sad, not amusing.