As a form of argument, debate is supposed to be a productive thing. One party takes one side of an issue (that cannot be proven definitively, e.g. 2+2=4) and another party takes the other side.
Aristotle believed that rationality is our final cause and that our highest aim is to fulfill our rationality. The party realizing truth, or saved from error—even if he took the side shown to be wrong—was described by Aristotle as having won the argument because where he was in error, thanks to the argument he was led to truth.
Obama did a great disservice to the country by either being unprepared—lazy, disinterested? drugged?—or unqualified—baffled? offended at being challenged?—or both, to argue his part on the issues served up to him like slow pitch softballs. As I see it, we all lost but he lost in both senses of the word.
As someone on this thread wrote, Obama still believes that the answer to all problems is more government, while Romney argued specifically that if we have to pay China in order to watch Big Bird and Michelle Obama advise us to eat our vegetables, then Americans can learn to live without either of them. At least that’s the enthymeme Mitt left with us, while Obama left his wife and Big Bird hanging. Why should we keep funding PBS with public money?
...........crickets..............
Unfortunately I believe the next debate is going to be more of the same. Obama surpassed his level of competence about three offices ago.
