{"id":14644,"date":"2024-06-26T07:57:17","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T11:57:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=14644"},"modified":"2024-06-26T07:57:17","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T11:57:17","slug":"are-you-ready-to-rumble","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=14644","title":{"rendered":"are you ready to rumble?!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

And here we are, time for the first Presidential debate for 2024. Ugh. Yes, there are still 129 days as of this posting until the election, and yes, this is unprecedentedly early, as neither candidate has even been officially nominated as of yet. But after months of debating if<\/strong> they\u2019ll actually be debating \u2014 and knowing that extended, skillful dialogue is not a perceived strength of either candidate (albeit for very different reasons), it\u2019s interesting what people have been saying about Thursday\u2019s primetime match up\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs we near Thursday\u2019s debate, Americans are fixated on whether Joe Biden will stumble on stage or Donald Trump will blow up in rage. Anything\u2019s possible in a debate \u2013 especially when both candidates are high-wire acts,\u201d<\/em> begins RealClearPolitics<\/em> contributor Ron Faucheux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn an age when we have become inured to the drama in presidential politics, there is still something about this week\u2019s debate that sets the pulse racing. There has probably been no occasion in the modern era when the stakes of a presidential debate have been so high, the competition so close, or the candidates\u2019 performances so unpredictable. The direction of the long campaign, its outcome and even the ultimate identity of one of the party\u2019s candidates could hinge on this 90-minute encounter in Atlanta. Do I exaggerate? Perhaps,\u201d<\/em> writes The Wall Street Journal\u2019s<\/em> Gerard Baker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRarely, if ever, has one candidate in a presidential debate had so much material to use against the other,\u201d<\/em> and, \u201cCan Biden perform? Can Trump tone himself down?\u201d <\/em>writes AP\u2019s <\/em>Steve Peoples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow do you run a debate between two men whose combined age is two-thirds that of the US republic? The answer is to have no audience, mute the one not talking and schedule bathroom breaks (calling them commercials). It would be an overstatement to say that next week\u2019s clash between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be definitive. But in a close election in which each candidate\u2019s mental capacity is under scrutiny, it will matter a lot,\u201d<\/em> wrote the Financial Times <\/em>Edward Luce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump won’t produce much in the way of civil dialogue over the nation’s future. It’s more likely to resemble a demolition derby, with each contestant trying to knock the other off course. And, let’s face it, many viewers will tune in mainly for the crashes,\u201d<\/em> says Los Angeles Times<\/em> columnist Doyle McManus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEven if people are unenthusiastic about candidates, they want to see if there\u2019s a meltdown on stage. And there could be two types of meltdown. Trump could have an anger meltdown, and Biden could have an age meltdown,\u201d<\/em> said Bipartisan Policy Center presidential historian, Tevi Troy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It’s an incredible test of their cognitive competence. This is our chance to see how much they’ve declined or if they’ve declined,\u201d<\/em> said University of Arkansas political science professor Patrick Stewart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDonald Trump and Joe Biden come into Thursday\u2019s presidential debate as incredibly well-known quantities defined by shared unpopularity and competing weaknesses. But their most important liabilities \u2014 for the incumbent, his decrepitude and his record on inflation; for the challenger, an unfitness distilled and confirmed by the events of Jan. 6 \u2014 feel too well known to be worth discussing further until we see what happens on the stage,\u201d<\/em> writes New York Times <\/em>opinion columnist Ross Douthat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo, we’re going to party like it’s 2020 all over again,\u201d<\/em> writes Salon\u2019s <\/em>Heather Digby Parton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suppose it\u2019s sad that we are so far removed from the primary purpose of good debate, that is \u201cto generate effective critical thinking into primary issues in the given topic.\u201d1<\/sup> As indicated by the eloquent chorus above, the promotion of critical thinking is trivial at best. The candidates are attempting to score points, look more popular than they really are, and land socially acceptable, rhetorical knock out blows\u2026 none of which, dare I say, qualify as good and right and true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the commentary the Intramuralist<\/em> most resonates with comes from CNN<\/em> contributor Terry Szuplat, who avers that \u201cmost Americans\u00a0say\u00a0they want more civility in our national discourse.\u201d In encouragement of how to get there \u2014 craving either Biden or Trump would lead us wisely (aka omit the knock out blows) \u2014 Szuplat recommends they debate the issues by utilizing the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n