If Obama and Romney competed in Forensics...

6 replies [Last post]

...who would win in a debate of a current political issue?

I think it's going to be a fascinating debate to watch.

Both sides have such big differences on the major issues, they're so far apart, and so to finally see them go head-to-heand and discuss specifics will be interesting.

As an example, both want to strengthen and expand the middle-class, and use this point as a campaign platitude, but have completely different approaches for how to achieve that.

I thought Obama was a very strong debater in 2008 but the media seems to think he was just good.

It's also interesting to note how both sides talk up the opponent's debating skills to decrease expectations.

I find it interesting that both sides are calling the other side liars (at least, that's what I got from the bit I caught on CNN last night). It would make for some interesting debate to see them not necessarily calling the other liar directly, but catching what they claim as a lie and using evidence to refute it. Battle for sure.

Still, I think as far as speaking skills go, Obama is stronger. Man knows how to address an audience.

I guess we will find out more tonight with the first Presidential debate!

Romny brought the energy, but Obama brought more evidence (at least, from my view point).

When Romney basically summarized the Constitution when asked about his thoughts on the role of government, and didn't really elaborate, I facepalmed. Of course sir! That's a given. It's how you interpret that and what you're going to do with it.

I still think Obama was playing it low-key for this round, but will come out full-force next debate. Anyone agree that was the strategy? Let people think he's too chill but then BAM!


That seems like a feasible strategy. However, as most people are calling this a win for Romney, it might have been better for Obama to have brought slightly more energy to this first round.

Post reply