kaneada said:
HappySqurriel said:
| kaneada said:
It goes in circles because you won't conceed that A) you don't understand the ways that definsiveness manifests and B) that Romney's performance is a text book example of a defensive behavior manifested agressively.
His platform was "Look at his record! This guy sucks! I am better! I am a champion of the middle class!" He spent his entire time personalizing attacks at President Obama instead of giving us, the viewer, the people he aims to gain political favor with, any real substance at all...Granted I think that Obama's sit and watch as Romney blows up and give a wry smile strategy was pretty pathetic as well...
There is also a difference between defending a position and being defensive...which you can also research...so no my definition is not too broad, it covers the commonly accepted definition of defensive behaviors.
|
I suspect you're using a definition of "defensive" from something like psychology which is not really applicable here ...
In the context of the debate the definition of defensive used is similar to how you would use it in the context of sports or military. Putting on pressure to "score" is not a defensive act, it is an offensive/aggressive act. By Romney attacking Obama's record he is going on the offensive to score points in order to "win" the debate and forces Obama to defend his record to prevent these points from being scored.
You're (essentially) arguing that a football team that spent 45:00 minutes on offense (compared to their opposition who only spent 15:00 on offense) and won the game 49 to 7 was playing a very defensive game.
Even using the psychology definition, Romney becoming aggressive in response to pressure from Obama on his record could be seen as a defensive act but Obama never really put any pressure on Romney. Hypothetically speaking, if Obama was pressuring Romney based on his record as governor and Romney responded with a attack on Obama to change the topic I would say that it was a defensive move; but Romney was calm and addressed all of Obama's critical statements and then countered back, which is clearly not a defensive act.
|
That football analogy is a horrible way to demonstrate your point, especially since there is no comparison between a full contact sport and a debate. You'd have to assume A) There is a clear concise scoring mechanism that can be used as a similar parallel, B) There are clear lines of offense and defence that can be established regardless of behavior. The problem with that, is neither exist and both are subject heavily to opinion. Even the things I suggest are opinion by the defintion of the term opinion, despite the fact that they best describe Romney's behavior.
Being defensive and agressive does not necesarily mean you obviously loose your cool. There are obvious markers in his performance, such as his rebuttals to remarks and any questions he was the lead on not having concise remarks that actually established that he had the better policy on anything. The majority of his remarks followed this format:
1. Comment on how Obama's policy is a failure or how he did not comply with the policies that he promised America.
2. Present rhetoric abstract that makes it sound like there is a calculated plan that is superior to Obama, despite providing no details.
3. OR deny stance that is accurate with his own record.
I realize that is really basic, but the interest of saving time... Your Go!
|
You don't seem to be aware that debating is a competitive activity with well established objective scoring mechanisms ... Here's a link to a debate scoring rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) and as you can see one of the criteria is:
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal:
Identification of weakness in "opposing" team’s arguments and ability to defend itself against attack.
The ONLY person who seems to have any trouble understanding what it means to defend or attack in the context of a debate is you.
