Kamala-Trump Debate

[questionreality]

Many of you may have forgotten, but In the 1st debate against Biden, Trump did not answer many questions as he was using the time to go back to the previous topics.

Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate?

If they wouldn't, he would clearly do the same here and it's very likely that they wanted to avoid that.

Trump is quite impulsive and there is no way he would move on from a topic if he didn't finish saying what he wanted to say.

 

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate?

Something tells me they knew what they were doing. I assume they were tracking public sentiment and were well aware of perceptions that sprang from the last debate and they planned accordingly. They did a very nice job! 😂

[Forestluv]

31 minutes ago, questionreality said:

1. I disagree that there were multiple forms of bias

2. Harris requested only ONCE for extra time, that's it. Trump requested it very frequently and ALSO got denied at least once. This does not mean that they were biased against Harris, just because of the one time that they denied her.

3. The extra time given to Trump did not favor him - he looked very unhinged and that is also the reason why his camp wanted their mics to be muted.

1. Yes, you seem to be holding a rigid singular cause-effect perspective. I’m not saying it’s is wrong. It is 100% true within that perspective. 

2. From another perspective, Trump didn’t “request” extra time like Harris did. He repeatedly took it with aggression and the mods caved every time. Harris was treated very harshly when she tried to get extra time. Your perspective equates the two and  seems unable to see the difference. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying you are locked into a myopic view of “This is how it is”.
 

3. Whether the extra time was used wisely or not is beside the point.. If a football team gets an extra down every series, that is a huge advantage. If they use that extra down to fumble the ball, that’s on them.

I find it ironic that your username is “questionreality”, yet you seem unable to question your own constructs of reality. 

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[aurum]

If right-wingers actually participated in an unbiased debate, it would collapse their entire worldview.

[Hardkill]

FWIW for now:

 

Edited September 12 by Hardkill

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

If right-wingers actually participated in an unbiased debate, it would collapse their entire worldview.

I’m imagining an ideal situation in which AI moderators are completely unbiased. They framed questions equally, applied equal standards of fact checking and allow equals speaking  time. 

Kamala would win the debate because she is much better prepared and much more skilled in various elements of debating. 

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, DocWatts said:

If we wanted to be more precise, the Dems are effectively a centrist party with a Center-Left (social-democrats like Bernie, AOC), and a Center-Right (neoliberals like Hilary Clinton and Obama) wing. With Biden and Harris falling somewhere in the between these two wings.

If America has a parliamentary system, the Dems would probably be two or three different parties.

If this were true the word socialism and all its associated meanings or policies would be met with neutrality instead of extreme opposition, ditto authoritarian, capitalist and libertarian influences.

What you are saying is unfortunately false from a global perspective. The democratic party is not central on these four axis.

Authoritarian
Capitalist
Socialist 
Libertarian. 

What you are going to argue they are central on, is along what the current people with money have decided the American political axis is, altered slightly due to public sentiment, which they also steer.

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’m imagining an ideal situation in which AI moderators are completely unbiased. They framed questions equally, applied equal standards of fact checking and allow equals speaking  time. 

Kamala would win the debate because she is much better prepared and much more skilled in various elements of debating. 

Left-wingers would have a lot of egg on their face as well. Just maybe not as much as right-wingers.

[questionreality]

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

1. Yes, your mindset seems to be a rigid singular cause-effect. 
 

That is your own projection and assumption in your world of abstraction.

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

2. From another perspective, Trump didn’t “request” extra time like Harris did. He repeatedly took it with aggression and the mods caved every time.

That is one way of seeing it - sometimes yes he took it aggressively because he was boiled up, and sometimes he said "excuse me" while doing so.

Getting him boiled up and unhinged was part of the game plan (mentioning crowd sizes, rallies being boring, etc), which worked quite well and was the clear cause of him being this aggressive. 

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Harris was treated very harshly when she tried to get extra time.

Why do you call it harsh? She requested it only once and they decided to move on to the next topic. There is a good chance that if she requested the time at a different time, she would also be granted it. 

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Your perspective equats the two and  seem unable to see the difference. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying you are locked into a myopic view of “This is how it is”.

From my perspective if Harris wanted extra time and would have thought that Trump was gaining unfair advantage, she would have brought it up, I have no doubt about it.

Harris looked in total control - she clearly didn't mind seeing him hang himself with that extra time.

I may sound locked in, but it doesn't mean that am not open to other possibilities. I am always open to hearing new perspectives.

10 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I find it ironic that your username is “questionreality”, yet you seem unable to question your own constructs of reality. 

I find it ironic that you say this, given that a lot of the time you seem to be lost in the world of abstraction, and unable to see that you are projecting a lot of the time. Your own projections from your abstract thinking sometimes they get in the way of seeing reality for what it is.

Also for someone who claims or positions themselves to be "stage yellow", you seem to have a lot of bias when it comes to politics - which is also quite ironic.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

Left-wingers would have a lot of egg on their face as well. Just maybe not as much as right-wingers.

Yes, it would be a relative win. Not a shutout win. 
 

If it were a football game, I’d say a 48-21 final score. 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

It could be that ABC decided to have a threshold for “unacceptable lies”.

Garden variety lies would go unchecked. Egregious, absurd lies would be checked. 

If Harris claimed that Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets, I think it’s likely that a moderator would have checked her. 

Exactly

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, questionreality said:

1. That is your own projection and assumption in your world of abstraction.

2. That is one way of seeing it - sometimes yes he took it aggressively because he was boiled up, and sometimes he said "excuse me" while doing so.

Getting him boiled up and unhinged was part of the game plan (mentioning crowd sizes, rallies being boring, etc), which worked quite well and was the clear cause of him being this aggressive. 

3. Why do you call it harsh? She requested it only once and they decided to move on to the next topic. There is a good chance that if she requested the time at a different time, she would also be granted it. 

4. From my perspective if Harris wanted extra time and would have thought that Trump was gaining unfair advantage, she would have brought it up, I have no doubt about it.

5. Harris looked in total control - she clearly didn't mind seeing him hang himself with that extra time.

6. I may sound locked in, but it doesn't mean that am not open to other possibilities. I am always open to hearing new perspectives.

7. I find it ironic that you say this, given that a lot of the time you seem to be lost in the world of abstraction, and unable to see that you are projecting a lot of the time. Your own projections from your abstract thinking sometimes they get in the way of seeing reality for what it is.

8. Also for someone who claims or positions themselves to be "stage yellow", you seem to have a lot of bias when it comes to politics - which is also quite ironic.

1. It’s one of many possible observations. I’m not saying it is objectively true or false. Every point you’ve made so far is 100% true within that perspective. So yes, one can interpret these words as projection, assumption and abstraction. It is completely true within that interpretation. 

2. Yes, I can see the game plan to be getting under Trump’s skin and getting him unhinged. Doing so means the more he spoke, the more he harmed himself. Yet extra speaking time in a debate is unequal and unfair. If Trump used extra time to harm himself, he squandered his opportunity- like a soccer team being granted a free penalty kick, then scoring on their own goal. 

3. Imo, the moderator acted more harshly to Harris relative to Trump. She continuously caved to Trump.

4. I’m not sure about that. Women are often judged differently than men. She may have been judged as “whiney” or “bitchy” by a lot of people if she kept confronting the mods on extra time. Men often get away with that easier than women. 

5. Yes, it seems Kamala was very composed and had good intuition that Trump was harming himself with his extra time. Yet extra time is still unfair in a debate. Both can be true.

6. My impression is a debate orientation of agree or disagree rather than exploring various perspectives. Yet I’m on an extreme end of this spectrum and usually not on the same wavelength as others. 

7. Yes, that is true within that mental construct. Yet there are many other possibilities. Personally, I don’t like being mentally confined. It feels like I’m trapped and causes me anxiety. 

8. Within SD theory, ideas presented here involve aspects of relativity, which would qualify as an aspect of Yellow. Yet this doesn’t give the idea more inherit value. Mindspaces that may be considered Yellow cause all sorts of problems in my life. There are many times I wish I could utilize Orange abilities better. 

Any idea I share has a form of bias because it is not another idea. 

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[UnbornTao]

 

From Reddit

[questionreality]

20 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

1. It’s one of many observations. I’m not saying it is objectively true or false. Every point you’ve made so far is 100% true within that perspective. So yes, one can interpret these words as projection, assumption and abstraction. It is completely true within that interpretation. 

2. Yes, I can see the game plan to be getting under Trump’s skin and getting him unhinged. Doing so means the more he spoke, the more he harmed himself. Yet extra speaking time in a debate is unequal and unfair. If Trump used extra time to harm himself, he squandered his opportunity- like a soccer team being granted a free penalty kick, then scoring on their own goal. 

3. Imo, the moderator acted more harshly to Harris relative to Trump. She continuously caved to Trump.

4. I’m not sure about that. Women are often judged differently than men. She may have been judged as “whiney” or “bitchy” by a lot of people if she kept confronted the mods on extra time. 

5. Yes, it seems Kamala was very composed and had good intuition that was harming himself with extra time. Yet extra time is still unfair in a debate. Both can be true. 

6. My impression is a debate orientation of agree or disagree rather than exploring various perspectives. Yet I’m on an extreme end of this spectrum and usually not on the same wavelength as others. 

7. Yes, that is true within that mental construct. Yet there are many other possibilities. Personally, I don’t like being mentally confined. It feels like I’m trapped and can cause anxiety. 

8. Within SD theory, ideas presented here involve aspects of relativity, which could qualify as an aspect of Yellow. Yet this doesn’t give the idea more inherit value. Mindspaces that may be considered Yellow cause all sorts of problems in my life. There are many times I wish I could utilize Orange abilities better. 

Any idea I share has a form of bias because it is not another idea. 

1. Fair enough

2. Do you remember the 1st debate with Biden? What do you think would have happened if he wouldn't have been granted the extra time? We can make a a bet that he would do the same as in the 1st debate - he would go back to previous topic and would just skip some questions. The difference is that you are viewing the concept of "fair" from an abstract standpoint and I am viewing it from a practical. From a practical standpoint it does not give Trump an unfair advantage - hence the difference in our perspectives.

3. We must be seeing from completely different lenses then. I did not see how she caved to Trump, nor how she acted more harshly to Harris. 

4. She may have been or she may not - we don't know this. But the fact remains is that she requested it only once and did not mind Trump getting the extra time. Given that her camp wanted the mics to be on in the 1st place, tells me that the probability is higher that she clearly wanted him to go on rants with the extra time and did not view it as unfair advantage.

5. Again, you are viewing it as "unfair" from an abstract standpoint, without taking into consideration who is actually debating. From a practical standpoint, we can argue that the extra time granted to Trump actually gave Harris an advantage.

6. I understand why you get the sense of this orientation due to my rigid style of writing a lot of the time. I would describe myself as rigid-fluid type - while writing I can be very rigid, while leaving in the background the fluidity and vice-versa. I also sometimes go back and add fluidity or rigidity later. I find that both have value - depending on who you are exchanging ideas with.

7. Interesting that you view it as being "mentally confined", while I view it as just being grounded in the "raw reality". Quite the opposite for me, I don't like to be stuck in the world of abstraction too much, hence our differences.

8.Fair enough

Edited September 12 by questionreality

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It’s true that both sides made false claims. Yet some minds stop there and are unwilling / unable to see asymmetry. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I’m imagining an ideal situation in which AI moderators are completely unbiased. They framed questions equally, applied equal standards of fact checking and allow equals speaking  time. 

Kamala would win the debate because she is much better prepared and much more skilled in various elements of debating. 

It would never appear that way because one side is absurdly bad faith. The AI would fact check and correct everything Trump is saying, because Trump is lying non-stop.

This would make the other side only more suspicious of the AI, and claim it is biased.

 

Remember, republicans do the same in relation to basically every US institution that does not fall in line with Trump's charlatanism. They also the same to the moderators in this debate, even though Trump was actually treated favorably by them (he got the last word almost every time even though it was against the rules, and Kamala Harris was prevented from doing so when she attempted to have it even just once).

 

AI is so dangerous because you can shape and teach it whatever you want. Like social media allowed bias to proliferate, so will AI, as it will give individuals the tools to basically confirm their bias in the most convincing way possible. Any AI is designed to appear convincing, so what you will see is over time multiple AI's that will be employed to convince the respective bias of their consumers, as you have seen occur in social media.

You can prepare for a new age of misinformation and bias.

Edited September 12 by Scholar

[Joshe]

9 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

unwilling / unable to see asymmetry. 

This isn't just the ideological right either. Have you seen random people in the swing states being asked how the debate shaped their view? 

It's pathetic that they answer with things like "I think Kamala won but she needs to earn my vote". 😂 WHAT? The fact that half the country is looking at Kamala and Trump and waiting on Kamala to earn their vote is so... something. 

Edited September 12 by Joshe

[ryandesreu]

Harris's haymakers trigger Trump's temper.

[Forestluv]

5. There are two things here. . . Imagine a soccer game in which one team gets a free penalty kick every 5 minutes. That is an unfair opportunity. Now imagine the team is confused and shoots/scores on their own goal. The other team laughs and says @keep giving them free kicks!”. . . The unfair opportunities were used to harm themselves and it turns out to be a disadvantage.
You keep focusing on that part, which I don’t disagree with. I’m pointing to the other part. 

7. My impression is of a mind that believes its construct of  “raw reality” is true.  . . That offers enormous practical benefits at the human / personal level, including a sense of being grounded. Yet there is also an enormous price to pay for those personal benefits. 

One interpretation is “lost in a world abstraction’”, which is completely true from one vantage point. Yet it’s possible to go ‘prior’ to that vantage point. Prior to the world of grounded “raw reality” and prior to the world of ungrounded “abstraction”. . .

This can be viewed as abstraction, yet it also points to the simplest grounding point of source. 

[Forestluv]

44 minutes ago, Joshe said:

"I think Kamala won but she needs to earn my vote". 

In some cases, that mindset may give a person a sense of control and self empowerment. 

Sorta like someone who wants to be courted by a potential gf / bf.

“I want her to earn me before I date her”.