Issue 694 Spiked Debate October 7, 2015

So this is a modification that can be added to both the double blind debate in issue 686, and the triple blind debate in 693.  In this case we add body language and word experts to the equation.  Here is what it entails.

Spiked debate:  In this case you add a few experts to the equation in debates.  The primary group of experts will be fact checkers who will immediately fact check each candidate's answers and then those fact checks will immediately be revealed to the viewing audience.  This is the simplest one to implement as all they do is have to listen to the "facts" presented by the candidates.  Of course candidates will be allowed to defend themselves if they got a "fact" wrong.  The people need objective correct knowledge and this is what these experts provide even to the candidates.

The second group of experts will analyze the language and tone of the candidates.  They will be the sole group who will be allowed to listen to the answers unaltered by voice changing software, but they will not see the candidates they are critiquing to ensure objectivity.   In this instance, the experts on tone can tell us when candidates have stress, or potential for stress, and whatever other emotions they are showing.  Those experts that focus on word choice only will tell us if they are using coached wording, where they are using buzzwords or if they are improvising.  The goal here is to see what emotions they are showing and whether their emotions are real and if their answers are really their own as well.  Basically, it is designed to see if they are authentic in their answers, and their potential ability to handle pressure.

Our last group of experts will analyze facial expressions and body language.  This group will be the sole group to be able to see the candidates visually, but a group of them will not be allowed to hear the candidate’s answers while the others will.  The group who will not hear the answers is to create a control group to corroborate the experts’ analysis of body language and facial expressions from the group that can hear the candidate’s answers.  Basically, it ensures objectivity.  They will work with the tone and language experts to create a profile on each candidate to judge emotion, and authenticity of each candidate.  As such, these experts and those of the tone and language group will critique the candidates after a set number of answers are given, but will be allowed to give their analysis before the debate ends.  So about half way through would be best.  

All experts could even be handpicked and control groups who can see/hear the candidates will be paired with those who cannot.  Those that can see/hear, basically those who know the identity of the candidates will then be fact checked by the control group that does not know the candidates by voice, or visually.  For those who will see or hear the candidates or both, they can be used to create a profile on the candidates at the start of their campaigning to create a profile that looks for differences in behavior from Start to finish of the campaign process and how they are in debate settings as compared to other stressful situations.  Their analysis will provide indications of how honest and authentic candidates truly are, and if they have proper judgment on decision making via their reactions, word choice, and overall answers.

Conclusion:  These experts bring an entirely new dynamic to the debate scene.  Obviously these experts can be provided to all debate forms.  In my two types they become the sole group of people who will be able to potentially see and hear which candidate is answering the question first.  But this form of debate can even be enhanced further by hooking up heart monitors and other medical devices to see how the candidate’s bodies deal with pressure from a debate.  If lie detectors were actually more accurate and trustworthy, I would say add those in as well to see if the candidates believe in the stuff they are saying.  However, I doubt many candidates would agree to this set up save the fact checkers.  However, you can see how this will show how well candidates deal with stress, their emotional state, and their honesty.  And you know what?  We deserve a more honest and authentic president.