We need self-discipline…. Click here to comment

I was watching O’Reilly today, and specifically he was covering the shout-down of Ann Coulter at a U Conn appearance.

One of the things I want to say is that I think it is great that people get so passionate about politics, and that I think it’s great that people finally care enough about their futures to become activists and actually work to bring about the future that they want for themselves.

That said, I believe we now need some self-discipline in the way we use our 1st Amendment. It’s great, and sure we all have the right to yell out our beliefs and not be shut down, but now that we all want to speak, we need a way to convey and talk about our issues in a rational manner where all sides get the chance to speak.

Am I being too… what’s the word. It’s not “wishful”… AH! It’s “idealistic”. Am I being too idealistic? I think not. Though I have never seen an actual debate team competition, I think that a similarly structured, publicly televised program kind of like the old Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, only more structured and with actual rules requiring the support of thesis statements with facts and evidence would benefit the public more than our current news shows with featured speakers. Watching shows like Cavuto, Hannity and Colmes, and O’Reilly, where they interview analysts often seems like I’m watching some kind of cluster fuck happen in front of my eyes. Specifically I think of the way people will start talking, and the person who doesn’t agree does *not* respectfully wait their turn, but instead interrupt and often initiate a mild shouting match with the other person.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not the way to “discuss” today’s issues. I would personally much rather see the aforementioned Politically Incorrect structure, only like the following….

Imagine, if you will, “game day”. My program can be shown on ESPN 3. Specifically I am thinking of something like a televised football game, only instead of watching a football game, we’re watching a debate. I want to see commentators, side A, side B, side C (if applicable), and referrees. As for the actual structure of the debate, I want to see:

- a coin toss of some sort, or a mutual agreement on which side goes first
- 2 minutes per side for opening statements
- 5 minutes per side for supporting the opening statements, citing sources, perhaps accompanied by a listing on some kind of sidebar on the screen.
- 2 minutes per side for posing questions to the other team.
- 5 minutes per side for answering the questions, again citing sources.
- finally, 5 minutes per side for striking down the opposing team’s arguments, again citing sources.

Of course, it’s not perfect, but we need a better way to communicate than shouting louder than our opponents.

-TJ