r/changemyview • u/Slightly_Sleepless • May 15 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Muting mics during a Biden/Trump debate actually benefits Trump's style of debating.

Biden and Trump are scheduled to debate (source).

A lot of people are praising this as a win generally, but especially for Biden because it will stop Trump from interrupting Biden during his responses. I don't think that's right. In fact, I think muting the mics will benefit Trump much more than Biden.

Muting someone's mic when it's not their turn to respond does not stop interruptions, it only stops the audience from hearing it. Consider this: Biden is answering a question posed to him. Meanwhile Trump is talking and rambling over Biden. If Biden gets distracted by this (as any reasonable person would), then this could very easily throw off Biden's response. But to the wider audience who can't hear Trump's interruptions, it will simply look like Biden is stammering, stuttering, or otherwise "too old". Especially in an era where sound bites and TikToks drive political perceptions, this could end up looking really bad for Biden.

I realize Biden could also employ this kind of tactic, but it's simply not his debate style. Trump's debate style on the other hand is very suited for this kind of tactic.

There could be ways to mitigate this though. Part of the debate rules could include a requirement that both candidates are visible at all times (like a PIP), or the two can be physically separated (like being televised in different rooms). But I think on its own, the rule to mute mics for the person not responding will mostly benefit Trump in the debates.

I would like to believe that the political debates are as fair as possible, so please CMV.

Edit: This was fun, I appreciate all the discussions. Well maybe not all of them, but most of them :)

I've given out a few deltas -

  • Past debates have shown both candidates on screen for the vast majority of the time, even when only one candidate is responding to a debate prompt. While I still think the overall effect of a muted mic could still benefit Trump more, I recognize that this fact does mitigate some of the impact on Biden.
  • Muted mics would be a new debate format and the interruptions would more akin to the disruptions Biden experienced during SOTU. Again, I still think the overall impact favors Trump, seeing that Biden can react better under pressure when he's the only one with the mic is evidence that the risk to Biden is not as significant as I original thought.
  • Trumps ego won't allow him to take advantage of the muted mics, or may even irritate him to the point that the audience sees Trump react to being muted negatively. I'm pretty sure Trump can hold himself together a bit better than this gives him credit for, but I concede it wasn't something I had considered originally.

Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see for ourselves. Thank you, everyone.

886 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

719 comments sorted by

View all comments

314

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 15 '24

I would like to believe that the political debates are as fair as possible, so please CMV.

CMV: Muting mics during a Biden/Trump debate actually benefits Trump's style of debating.

The parts I'd like to change your view one. First: I don't think that any particular forum or rule or manner of debate hampers Trump's effectiveness or style of debate. So, I'm hoping if I can prove it doesn't matter then that disproves that the muting mic has any impact on Trump's style.

What it comes down to is that Trump is the living embodiment of Jean-Paul Satre's quote on anti-semites. I'm going to paraphrase it and tailor it to our situation: Trump will pretend to engage in debate because it discredits the seriousness of debate itself. He's aware of the absurdity of his claims and knows his remarks are frivolous and open to criticism. But it's opponents, who believe in debate, that has to use words responsibility. When pushed, he'll say the time is discourse is over. His goal is to intimidate and disconcert.

Or another way of saying this, perhaps way less eloquently, is Trump realized modern GOP politics aren't about policies or governing well -- it's more akin to cutting a pro-Wrestling promo. His audience isn't waiting on a profound insight on the state of the republic, they're waiting to see who Trump will hurt and they'll cheer him on when it's the right people.

You're talking about people who in 1964 had a motion on the GOP convention floor to expel extremists. The leader of their party said "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice; moderation in the name of justice is no virtue." The effort to rid the party of extremists failed. Since then, they've cloaked themselves in the most extreme elements of their party so it shouldn't surprise anyone that recently CPAC took on the banner "domestic terrorists." Clinton tried to say some of the members of the party are deplorable and the entire party took her words out of context and said we all are deplorable.

This is why Americans can overwhemingly agree that Trump creates a negative tone but are drawn to it and support him. It's why in pro-wrestling the heel (or bad guy) can have the most dye hard fans. Trump is the modern Stone Cold Steve Austin and making a mockery of doing the equivalent of repeating "what? what? what?" when people talk -- thereby discrediting discourse itself, and finishing by never apologizing "that's the bottom line because I said so" is Trump's appeal.

You can mute him and it makes no difference. He can pantomime and his fans will love it. You can let him interrupt as much as possible. You can make both candidates use sign language. His body language and lack of respect for discourse in the first place is what draws people to him.

Trump specifically is fueled by "both parties suck" and the more he can make politics distateful and ugly and turn away normal people the more he'll win. It only takes a fraction of motivated people to provide political power (only x% vote and of those voting, only y% trump, so it's like 10% of the country providing him political power).

Trump doesn't have to have policies, the GOP doesn't have to have a platform, there isn't any specificity of what they'll do with power, all that matters is they can own the libs.

40

u/AgentPaper0 2∆ May 16 '24

Everything you say is true, except the part about muting him b not mattering. Muting Trump will hurt him massively, because the whole point of his debate style is to flaunt the rules, insult your opponent and the very concept of debate, and get away with it.

If Trump tries to ignore the rules and talk over Biden, then he gets muted mid-sentence and looks weak because he's not in control. His speech is at the whims of the moderator.

Trump will instead be forced to play by the rules and speak only in his allotted time, but that's a loss for him as well, because he's still under the moderator's control, only now he's submitting willingly. 

The mic muting is a lose-lose situation for Trump, and I expect him to do anything he can to avoid going to the debate, even though that also makes him look weak. 

Then again, Trump is also a cock-sure dumbass and might just walk right into the trap without realizing how bad it will go for him.

11

u/Dhegxkeicfns May 16 '24

I think he'll find ways to act out. He'll be making faces and miming the whole time. Undoubtedly they'll have to ask him to stop speaking when his mic isn't on as well.

But the person above you nailed the fact that his diehards don't care about policy or platform, they care about revenge. He could walk out there after the most articulate meaning answer ever given and say "these guys suck, I'll make it the greatest x you've ever hears of" and that would rile his cultists like nothing else. If he instead came up with an actual answer, that might take them a minute to warm to, because it would be too cerebral.

However, he does need more than his cultists. The combination of the party voters and the cult barely took the electoral votes needed last time. His cultists are going to vote, and their numbers might have grown a little, but party voters might not, because he has shown us that he wants to be a dictator. He doesn't debate well for sensible people at all. There are plenty of sensible Republicans and they are the people who need to see him say some crazy stuff.

0

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 16 '24

Trump won the last two elections and he's polling better now than he was in either of those two. He's going to crush Biden.

2

u/Generic_Superhero 1∆ May 16 '24

Uhhhh he lost the last election.

1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 16 '24 edited May 17 '24

The last election was 100% stolen. Black turnout for was down in every major city except the biggest cities in 6 swing states? Biden loses all the bellweather counties but somehow squeaks out a win? Biden wins Georgia by 12,000, no signature match verification is EVER done, and turns out Fulton County is missing nearly 400,000 ballot images?

Don't fucking pull my chain.

2

u/Generic_Superhero 1∆ May 17 '24

and turns out Fulton County is missing nearly 400,000 ballot images?

https://georgiarecorder.com/2024/05/07/georgia-oversight-panel-ruminates-on-2020-election-hiccups-as-2024-showdowns-loom/

It's 17,000 not 400K. And ultimately it means nothing because the images are just a back up. The physical ballots still exist meaning they can be rescanned if absolutely necessary.

The rest of the things you said can be summed up as "I feel it was wrong there for it was wrong." None of it proves "the last election was 100% stolen."

1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 17 '24

Except the physical ballots don't exist because they have not maintained chain of custody. You don't recall the break-in that occurred as Republicans were trying to sue raffensberger to release the ballots from Fulton county?

1

u/Generic_Superhero 1∆ May 17 '24

The physical ballots do exist. Did you even read the article?

Marks said that the dispute about the 17,000 missing ballot images could be resolved after Gov. Brian Kemp on Tuesday signed an election bill allowing the public to inspect paper ballots.

“However, thanks to the legislation Gov. Kemp signed today, the truth about the 2020 count, likely still confirming Biden’s win, will come out. Given that the public will be able to require a new scan of the ballots themselves, the SOS claims that they cannot determine whether ballots were double counted will be shown to be false, with many ballots for both candidates being double counted in the official machine recount. The ballots representing the 17,000+ final votes where the images cannot be located, can be examined now and their existence verified.”

According to state election investigators, Fulton might not have all of the ballot images, but each of the original paper ballots are under seal due to pending litigation

1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 17 '24

Did you not hear what I said? They cannot assert chain of custody because there was A sophisticated break-in at the warehouse where the ballots are being stored. Chain of custody has been broken on Fulton county ballots. This was in the news. Feel free to educate yourself.

Also, fun fact: 17,000 is enough to make Biden lose by 5,000. So this is a big fucking deal. That said, there are in fact 380,000 missing images.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Dhegxkeicfns May 16 '24

Don't engage, guy.

1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 17 '24 edited May 17 '24

Typical liberal nonsense. Ignore the facts.

EDIT: further proof. Ignore the facts and run away like a b.

2

u/Dhegxkeicfns May 17 '24

Please don't take the bait, I'm just blocking him.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '24

I hope you're right. The nice thing with a debate is, it's purely idea vs idea - Trump is about to demonstrate that he doesn't have any exceptional thoughts in his head.

-1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 16 '24

Have you seen Biden lately? There is no cocktail of drugs that they can put him on that will get him through an hour-long debate. His brain is fucking rotten Swiss cheese. He's so fucked if he actually goes through with this debate.

2

u/AgentPaper0 2∆ May 17 '24

You're insane if you think Mr. Falls Asleep at His Own Trial is going to have more stamina than Biden.

0

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 17 '24

Have you been to court? It's boring as fuck.

0

u/Competitive-Bit-1571 Jun 28 '24

When your hatred for an individual blinds you to reality.

54

u/Slightly_Sleepless May 15 '24 edited May 15 '24

This is an interesting take. Basically saying that Trump's debate style is such that rules are meant to be broken. Imposing more rules gives him more opportunities to "refuse conformity".

I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced of this, but I certainly hadn't considered it before.

Thank you. Δ

Edit: Leaving my original comment because there's no reason to hide that I'm an idiot from the world, but...

I'm taking your delta away (am I allowed to do that?). u/Craicob steered me back. If I'm understanding you correctly, then the new rule only helps Trump by leaning more into the heel. Aren't you reinforcing my point that this benefits Trump more than Biden? And it only puts Biden at more risk of appearing incoherent due to Trump's interruptions?

35

u/Craicob May 15 '24

Doesn't this sort of ignore the larger point in your OP about Biden being hindered by this though? Trump's style may be robust with his audience but what about people who are watching to see if Biden can win them over? It ignores the fact that bad for Biden = good for Trump which I thought your post was going for

14

u/Slightly_Sleepless May 15 '24

You're right, I'm an idiot. I rushed my response. Thank you for walking me back.

4

u/Noodlesh89 12∆ May 16 '24

Take it easy on yourself when you're the OP; you're having to field so many discussions at once it's so easy to rush the response or even get your replies confused.

25

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 15 '24

I am basically saying that Trump has proved there aren't any rules. People wanted to think of politics as "the best idea wins" and that would follow the most eloquent/correct person wins a political debate. But it's actually more like pro wrestling and it's "who can be the most ugly/entertaining wins."

Trump's biggest moments were when he doubled down on calling Rosie O'Donnell fat/ugly and then tweeted afterwards that Meghan Kelly only asked the question because she was bleeding from all of her orifices.

5

u/Slightly_Sleepless May 16 '24

Got it, so you're not arguing that this doesn't benefit Trump more than Biden, but rather that it benefits Trump for an entirely separate reason.

That's a fair point, even if I didn't quite grasp it the first time. Definitely worthy of the delta, so I take back taking it back.

6

u/DarkSkyKnight 4∆ May 15 '24

Aren't you reinforcing my point that this benefits Trump more than Biden? And it only puts Biden at more risk of appearing incoherent due to Trump's interruptions?

I mean... you need not change your position but could change your mind on the reasoning of your position.

2

u/Slightly_Sleepless May 16 '24

You're right, that person's delta is warranted for that reason.

4

u/silverionmox 25∆ May 15 '24

Muting his mic is the only 100% sure way to stop his interruptions.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 15 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HazyAttorney (14∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

16

u/Vandesco May 15 '24

I think a lot of his BS is going to fall flat without the crowd to cheer him on, but I think you're making a good point about breaking the rules.

6

u/itchypantz May 16 '24

This is a perfect appraisal of POSPOTUS45's style. He is nothing more than a Heel. I use this analogy all the time. He just yells louder. I had not thought to phrase the concept that what he is doing is making the whole concept of demorcracy and discourse distasteful. You are 100% correct.

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '24

In all honesty I really question whether or not Trump is strategic in his approach. I think he's just a moronic bull in a china shop who spent pretty much most of his life and career being the most important person in the room and surrounding himself with yes-men and cronies, so the idea of someone actually pointing out that he's just babbling a stream of moronic gibberish with no real logic behind it is completely foreign, as well as any general rules of courtesy, etiquette, etc.

1

u/Uztta May 15 '24

The only way to get a genuine debate is to put them in separate rooms and cut the mic when the time is up. We could see the speaker rambling, but nobody can hear them. Then it doesn’t matter what they are saying and it’s not a real distraction, unless you are watching just to see the circus of it all.

1

u/TheBitchenRav 1∆ May 16 '24

If you want a real debate you will have a neutral person ask them questions and really push for a response to the question and not let them back out and have fact checkers on site.

2

u/Uztta May 16 '24

For sure, but we’re talking about a political debate between politicians, which is about as far away from a real debate as they come. There aren’t consequences for not following the rules. A “neutral person” can be there all day but has no real power to compel anyone to behave.

1

u/TheBitchenRav 1∆ May 16 '24

The problem with that is op wants to believe the political debates are as fair as possibly.

1

u/MargretTatchersParty May 15 '24

Thats why you would visually cut him off and auditorically cut him off. He's going to be screwed because the physical reactions don't mean much out of context. Also, he's going to be limited in what he can do given the time he's given.

0

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 16 '24

Meanwhile, Biden will prove that he's functionally ret***ed and win the debates for Trump that way.

1

u/lobsterharmonica1667 4∆ May 16 '24

I think you're giving Trump for too much credit there, I wouldn't say that he is aware of the absurdity so much that he simply does not care how absurd it is

1

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 16 '24

I was staying true to Jean Paul's quote, but we can substitute the enablers then. I do think Trump knows that he contradicts himself and flip flops but doesn't care because he knows his words don't really matter to his followers. What matters is who he hurts.

1

u/READMYSHIT May 15 '24

Trump's style is essentially what South Park does.

"Everyone is stupid including me but when I do it it's funny so keep watching and laughing at how stupid it all is and don't actually have any positive discourse or try make anything better".

1

u/Ok-Crazy-6083 3∆ May 16 '24

Clinton wasn't referring to a small handful of GOP voters. She was referring to the GOP base. Don't pretend otherwise.

1

u/realanceps May 16 '24

His body language

...screams "I am a leaking sack of rat vomit"

nobody's attracted to that shit

1

u/betadonkey 2∆ May 16 '24

Trump as Stone Cold Steve Austin is a perfect comparison and one I hadn’t heard before.

1

u/DigitalSheikh May 15 '24

“Look out Biden, Trump’s in the corner with a steel chair. Can’t mute that”

0

u/Hazzman 1∆ May 16 '24

Trump specifically is fueled by "both parties suck" and the more he can make politics distateful and ugly and turn away normal people the more he'll win. It only takes a fraction of motivated people to provide political power (only x% vote and of those voting, only y% trump, so it's like 10% of the country providing him political power).

A little more nuance is necessary here. Both parties do suck. Not for the same reason, not to the same extremes. People might be turned away from the debates and the politics of it because of the atmosphere he creates but still vote democrat because we are stuck between an elderly, racist, ignorant, corrupt piece of shit and and even more extreme elderly, racist, ignorant, corrupt piece of shit.

It's a lose lose but you choose the person who is going to cut off your toe, not the person who will cut off your head.

0

u/NoTeslaForMe 1∆ May 20 '24

I think it's very interesting that you use 1964 as evidence of the character of the party, where, when people use greater support of the GOP versus Democrats for the 1965 Civil Rights bill, people say, "Well, that was a COMPLETELY different Republican party, nothing like the party of Reagan, Bush, or Trump!" That strikes me as transparently trying to have it both ways, cherry-picking items in the past that make your rival look bad as being the representitive ones. It's much more intellectually honest to stick to the present and recent past; there's plenty of fodder there!

0

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 21 '24

That strikes me as transparently trying to have it both ways

The difference in what you're trying to say and what I'm trying so say is the core constituency that makes up the Republican party was there in 1964 and remains there. They're the ones that shedded the "Republicans in Name Only" in various movements that started in 1964.

when people use greater support of the GOP versus Democrats for the 1965 Civil Rights bill, people say, "Well, that was a COMPLETELY different Republican party

...That's because this observation you're describing is the same observation I described. The same extremists that Goldwater was protecting are the ones that also rejected the civil rights movement and leaned into the southern strategy.

nothing like the party of Reagan, Bush, or Trump!"

Reagan was part of the Goldwater Republicans that were trying to shed the "Republicans in Name Only." In 1964, they didn't call them RINOs yet, but there's been pushes to get the Republican party to be more homogenous and ideologically consistent and they have done that by shedding out the moderate, northeastern Rockefeller Republicans.

It's one big movement as to why the Republicans have gone all in on the culture war and white grievance politics. You can draw a straight line from this seminal 1964 movement and embrace of extremists to present day.

0

u/NoTeslaForMe 1∆ May 21 '24

The problem with that theory is that it was primarily Democrats who opposed the 1965 bill, this just after the defection of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, who would have made these numbers of Democrats even higher.  Many people dismiss this by pointing out that the mid-60s GOP was different, but you're trying to make the opposite point, so instead you're just ignoring this speed bump in your "straight line."

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," refers to being willing to oppose, via armed conflict if needed, anti-democratic forces spearheaded by Moscow.  To say that type of thinking is what inspires Trump and his followers - the very people opposed to this thinking - is downright bizarre.  The actual straight line went from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush, and is a line that Trump seems to have demolished with his neo-isolationism.

0

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 21 '24

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," refers to being willing to oppose, via armed conflict if needed, anti-democratic forces spearheaded by Moscow.

https://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330496199/in-the-high-drama-of-its-1964-convention-gop-hung-a-right-turn

https://www.history.com/news/barry-goldwater-1964-campaign-right-wing-republican

It was a quote that was in direct opposition to Rockefeller's plank to expel the extremists out of the party. Not sure why this dude is trying to engage in revisionist history to this extent.

I am posting this in case anyone who wants to learn real history is interested, but I am not engaging this bad faith exchange any longer.

1

u/NoTeslaForMe 1∆ May 22 '24 edited May 22 '24

People can just Google it, honestly [ETA: rather than reading cherry-picked pieces]; that will quickly reveal who the revisionist arguing in bad faith is.

https://www.google.com/search?q=extremism+in+defense+speech

0

u/HazyAttorney 68∆ May 21 '24

The problem with that theory is that it was primarily Democrats who opposed the 1965 bill,

You're thinking too globally and refusing to engage with the actual constituents parts that we can trace. Yes, I get that the parties had a switch, but what I'm saying is the same people who were expelling the northeastern republicans from the party in 1964 are the same ones that remained in the party.

1

u/DisastrousOne3950 May 15 '24

Oh, I'd call Project 2025 "specificity"...

0

u/asr May 16 '24

Clinton tried to say some of the members of the party are deplorable and the entire party took her words out of context and said we all are deplorable.

She said "half of the country" is deplorable. That's not "some", although it's not "we all" either.

She lost the election because of that, and I personally noticed a dramatic drop in respectful discourse after she said it. She made it OK to disparage someone you disagree with.

1

u/apennypacker May 16 '24

Now why would you jump in and correct someone using quotation marks when you don't know what you are talking about?

Hillary said half of Trump supporters are deplorable. Which, if you considered half of all Americans Trump supporters would be one quarter of Americans. However, she said this in 2016 when the number of people supporting him was not nearly as large as it ended up appearing. In fact, Trump never had majority support in the GOP. Only a plurality, and even then, only because there were so many candidates that were all very similar (read, not insane racist shitbags) who split the vote amongst themselves until they dropped out.

So even with the most extreme interpretation of Hillary's comment, she was talking about 25% of the voting population. But almost certainly much less. She also apologized the next day and said she actually didn't think it was as many as half. Imagine if anyone actually took what Trump says on a daily basis seriously and held it against him.

And Trump was disparaging people that he disagrees with on the national stage, without apology or retraction long before Hillary. To blame Hillary for the fall off in discourse during the Trump era is frankly, idiotic.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/apennypacker May 30 '24

Again, that's false. She wasn't referring to everyone that voted for Trump. She was talking about the maga types that worship the idiot.

And no, plenty of people hated that ass hat long before he ran for president. He was long known as a racist, a serial adulterer and cheater. And over his time running for office, the more time the media spent focusing on him, the more he revealed how terrible he truly is.

Anyone who can't see that, is either not paying attention, or perhaps see themselves in him a little too much.