How to Watch a Political Debate

Like it or not, the campaign season will soon be upon us. This means that we will soon be bombarded with hours and hours of "commentary" and "analysis" on the subjects of who actually won a given round of the upcoming presidential candidate debates. Naturally, these "commentaries" and "analyses" will be about as "impartial" as a discussion of the merits of communism delivered by someone standing atop Lenin's Tomb during the annual May Day Parade.

On the slim chance that the candidates might actually discuss the merits of their proposed agendas, let's take a look at how you can decide who actually won the debates.

First of all, don't let appearances fool you.

In the 1960 debates John Kennedy looked quite dapper in his tailored suits and perfect hair. Nixon, on the other hand, looked like both his makeup and clothing had been selected by a nearsighted undertaker. Women voters loved the "Kennedy look" and turned out in record numbers to vote for the man who would eventually lay the groundwork for the Vietnam War. It's hard to say what Nixon might have done had he been elected, but you can be sure that we would probably been spared a few hundred pictures of Pat Nixon on the covers of every magazine published on this side of Mars.

The candidate who first claims to have won the debate is, by default, the actual loser.

The logic behind this principle is actually quite simple.

If Candidate A makes such a fool of himself (or herself, since the Fat Lady hasn't sang) that he / she starts to sound like Hugo Chavez with a hangover, the only course of action is to immediately claim victory in the hope that no one will remember what he / she said.

In this scenario, the proper course of action for Candidate B is to simply shut up and thus appear to be the only rational choice is anyone but Candidate A.

The candidate that is proclaimed to be the winner, in the opinion of the "impartial" debate moderators, has lost the debate.

This one is another no-brainer.

The frequency with which a candidate is declared the winner is always, in this life and in the life to come, directly proportional to the degree that the declared winner's ass was kicked from one end of the debating hall to the other.

In the unlikely event that you happen to run across an "impartial" moderator, immediately contact your local game warden in order to have this rare and endangered species captured for further study by the scientific community.

Use a simple scoring system to keep track of the candidates' position statements during the debate.

If you were to attempt to decide the winner of the debate by subjective criteria such as "whether or not the candidate sounds sincere" you would soon be hopelessly confused, which is exactly what the candidates want. You should instead adopt some "scoring system" to prevent yourself from falling into the illogical trap. I recommend using the Reversal In Position Score (RIPS).

When a candidate makes a position statement a score of "0" (zero) is assigned. Every time the candidate makes a statement supporting his / her original statement, a value of "+1" is added. Every time that same candidate reverses the original statement a value of "-1" is added to the score. At the end of the debate the individual values are totaled and the RIPS determined.

The target value for RIPS is "0" because this indicates that the candidate either 1) made a statement and shut up or 2) the candidate's opinion on a given subject changes so often that the candidate has no passionate sentiments on the issue and thus might actually listen to the voices of reason at a later date.

Obviously, the farther a candidate's score is from "0" the more likely the candidate's position on a subject will border on fanaticism and the candidate can be expected to ignore any advice that doesn't come from a burning bush.

Don't fall for the reductio ab hitlorum argument.

The reductio ab hitlorum is a favorite tactic of the more leftward-leaning candidates and is used when the candidate's position either defies reason or is entirely unsupported by believable evidence. At this point, the only possible defense of that position is that your opponent is a "Nazi" or some other vile species of "fascist."

Finally, never let the responses of the audience influence your decision.

The reasoning behind this statement borders on the self-obvious.

The audience at any political debate is comprised of two general classes of people: those with nothing better to do and are thus apathetic, and those whose opinions are already set and cannot be swayed by anything approaching reason. Follow the maddening crowd at your risk.

If all else fails during this election year you can always adopt my personal strategy, which is to simply ignore the whole dog and pony show and watch reruns of The Twilight Zone.

Somehow, that seems like the most logical thing to do.