Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
But it's not about the candidates saying what their principles are. That's all obama did, and that's why he lost. It's about the candidates challenging each other's principles. Candidates state principles all the time and the question is always "do they mean them?" In their regular speeches they can get away with just rhetoric. The media is supposed to challenge them but does a poor job. In the debate they can challenge each other--"if that's really your principle, then..." etc.
The only thing that politicians do when challenging each others principles is rhetoric. This isn't a university class where they are using logical arguments to come to conclusions about why the opponents views on X are bad. What good came out of Romney's attacks on Obama's principles (since Obama didn't do the same in return)? We had more talking points, "death panels" came up again, and some blatant lies in regards to Medicare. How is this a good purpose for debates?