And I would lean more toward kerry winning that debate tonight, not bush. It just seemed like kerry was better prepared.
Kerry was better prepared and he speaks very well. He was Debate 1337 in college. But i do think that he just criticized more than he proposed. he had the upper hand because he could play off what he thought were Bush's Mistakes.
However, i think they both repeated a lot. I did enjoy it though. (i never watch these things BTW)
I think you are biased. I cant stand anyone throwing their opinons out on who won a debate when they are already solidly decided on a canidate. No hardcore kerry or hardcore bush fan will say the other side was better. Stop looking at it from what points you agreed on and look at it from a debate and intelligence contest view. And why is willy wonka wearing a can of peas and or beer on his head.
I'm not hardcore either way, I'm more for Bush than Kerry but with good reason. Nader could be a pretty good president if he straightened out his views a bit.
Is it really possible to not be biased in politics?
You must be confused somehow. They stand in a room and have mock debates, with someone roleplaying the other candidiate, someone roleplaying the questioneer.. and then they are asked "Now what do you say when asked this kind of question?"
Also.. the questions asked are "pre approved" questions by at least the Bush administration, even if they don't know the exact questions, they know the gist of it.
They are given General Ideas of Debate questions. Kerry and Bush each have their own like "prep team". Basically organizing thoughts, putting them together and presenting them in a common manner (for everyone to understand). And part of why people say Kerry was more prepared, is because he debated a hell of a lot more than Bush does. Hes got a ton of experience with it.