The caliber of my opponent tonight was exponentially higher than the last time I was on this network. The last time, they put me up against this meat puppet named Torkelson. Tonight, I faced off against Tom Nichols, director of strategic studies at the Naval War College. Nice guy, sharp operator.
Critiquing my own performance, I could definitely have done better. I need to learn to jump in more when obvious bullshit is being flapped about; there were 10 moments in the debate when I had the guy dead to rights, but I let the moment pass and the subject of the debate moved on.
Granted, it's more difficult to do these gigs than I can accurately describe. I'm not running the debate; the guys who own the show are, and they set the tone and steer the debate, and when they change the subject before I can rebut the last subject, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's a mortal lock that they will defer to the guy from the Naval War College before me; they gave him the last word and did not provide me with an opportunity to rebut the seven things he said wrong. I am not yet impolite enough to interrupt people in a format like this, which is either honorable or a demonstrable flaw.
But I can do better, I think. Take a look at this and tell me how, bearing in mind the Monday Morning Quarterback factor (i.e. there are factors involved with TV debating that you can't know unless you've been there).
I appreciate the input. Here is the page:
http://www.boston.com/news/necn/Shows/news_night/The 'Iraq Insurgency' link, or the 'Watch Video' link, will get you there. You need Real Player to watch. Sorry about that, and thanks again.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore