The Instigator
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
iq_two
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

There should be a 'Moment of Truth: Election 08 edition'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,014 times Debate No: 3222
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

FalseReality

Pro

If you don't know of the new tv show "Moment of Truth", its the game show were people are attached to a lie detector and asked extremly personal questions about their thoughts and previous actions. I think that they should challenge the presidential candidates of 08 to come and do it. If they are really a trustworth candidate, they should have no problem with it. Then the people could really see what the candidates are made off.
My Reasons: after all the years of electing our president,from Washington to Bush 2, someone has always been unhappy about that person in office. There' no one to blame except the voters who put the crummy president into office. Well, now we have a method to see what we're really getting into: lie detectors. Any candidate can make their speech as pretty as they want, but when they're elected they won't do any of that stuff. You'd think people would realize this by now, but even if they did, in the past we didn't have this miracle machine. But now we do, so why tolerate the dishonesty any more? Lets actually know who the candidates are before we cast our vote.
Now you say: but won't they ask all those slanderous questions conserning their sex lives? I think this could be avoided if the network is smart about it. It'dbe a real chance to make a difference, and I don't think they'd mess it up just because they think knowing what kind of langerea Hilary prefers might up their ratings. If you think about it, such an event would sky rocket the viewer ratings enough as it is.

SO I say, lets avoid more mistakes, and know what we're getting into before we're already there.
iq_two

Con

This is an interesting topic. Just so you know, I don't watch "Moment of Truth" but I have read a few articles about it and am familiar enough with the concept to participate in this debate.

1. after all the years of electing our president,from Washington to Bush 2, someone has always been unhappy about that person in office.
Agreed.

2. There' no one to blame except the voters who put the crummy president into office.
Well, you could also blame the politicians for running, but I mainly agree with your point. However, you seem to be implying that because someone has always been unhappy with the president, that president is a crummy president. That's not necessarily true. People disagree on so many issues that even if they knew the entire truth about a candidate, not everybody would agree on whether certain things were good or bad.

3. Well, now we have a method to see what we're really getting into: lie detectors.
That is the main reason I decided to debate you on this topic. Lie detector tests are unreliable. "As early as 1965, a congressional committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the polygraph's validity; a 1997 survey in the Journal of Applied Psychology put the test's accuracy rate at only 61 percent. Polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in court because, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his majority opinion in the 1998 case U.S. v. Scheffer, "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." Indeed, the lie detector is so untrustworthy that Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988, making it illegal for private-sector employers to compel workers to take polygraph exams." (http://www.motherjones.com...)

Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson, an expert on polygraphs, testified that, "[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity. Although there is disagreement amongst scientists about the use of polygraph testing in criminal matters, there is almost universal agreement that polygraph screening is completely invalid and should be stopped. As one of my colleagues frequently says, the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading.
If this test had any validity (which it does not), both my own experience, and published scientific research has proven, that anyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes." (http://antipolygraph.org...)

And it would be even less accurate for the kinds of questions the presidential candidates would be asked. For example, say one of the questions is, "Are you going to raise taxes?" The candidates might say, no, and be telling the truth, but then raise taxes. They might not PLAN to raise taxes, but plans change. In addition, the president does not necessarily have the power to do things. A candidate could always say, "No, I won't raise taxes," and omit to mention that Congress will be raising taxes. Or the candidates could say, "I plan to…" or eve that they will do something. Even if they mean it at the time, that doesn't mean it will happen. Even if lie detectors were reliable, they would be useless for statements about the future.

I think we can agree that most politicians lie. If politicians knew they would have to take a lie detector test, the people who would not be afraid to run would be those who are able to beat a lie detector test. Or the politicians who are running would go through the kind of training CIA agents use to learn how to fake out the polygraph. As Dr. Richardson testified, "anyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."

I don't think that the networks would ask questions about the politicians sex lives and lingerie not so much for the reasons you stated as because the candidates could just make it clear ahead of time hat questions they will answer. I'm not sure about the show, but on normal polygraph tests the subjects are told ahead of time what questions they will be asked. My reason for being against this proposal is not for fear of the candidates being asked about their sex lives, but because giving political candidates polygraphs would not help anything as polygraphs are unreliable and would be even more unreliable for the kinds of questions that would be asked, but would give the voters a false sense of security, and would encourage politicians to learn how to beat the polygraph. The polygraph makes interesting television, but it's not reliable enough to base something as important as an election on.
Debate Round No. 1
FalseReality

Pro

since you agree with point 1 i'll skip to point 2

2) This may be true, but it seems that people tend to vote based simply on the party and candidate rather than issues they stand for. All candidates will make huge speeches that sound motivational but never say anything. If a voter was able to watch a candidate and see what they are really going to do, even if they had planned to vote for them, might actually be able to see the candidate for who they really are and change his mind to vote for someone he now finds is more reliable, even if he was strongly against that cand. before.

3) Ture, people don't think lie detectors are reliable, there are ways to pass it, and there is not that much scientific fact supporting it. But you've greatly enlarged little problems. People don't think lie detectors are reliable in forensics because people can get nervous under interogation, but they also conduct the Guilty Knowledge test along with Control Question test. Let me explain

A polygraph test doesn't measure lies, but signals the body emits when one knows they are lying. It takes EXTREME resilience to pass these and only someone with remarkable characteristics is able to falsly pass them. The mesurements the device measures are blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin conductivity. Anyone who has lied about something knows that they feel some if not all of these effects when lying. It measures extreme fluctuations in accordance to questions asked to the resipient. The testers test the test (weird right) before they ask any of the real question they want to know. They first ask innocent questions one would not have trouble truthfully ansering, like "Is your screen name iq two?" where you would say yes. Then they ask obviously false questions and have you lie, like "do you have feathers on your nose" and you would say yes, and even though its not a question you should feel guilty about the machine will still pick up the signals you simotaniouly emitted in congruence with your answer and show your lying. Afterwards they will ask the real questions, randomly throwing in bogus questions to again make sure you are telling the truth. In criminal prosecustions they will run this test and the Guilty knowledge test, where they will have someone totally unrelated to the crime take the test and answer questions about the crime they could have no knowlegde about. THey are then graded by the reliability in accordance to the case . The theory behond it being that those results should be almost perfectly congruent with the suspects. If the suspect is innocent, then a confirmed innocent persons test should match up with theirs. If the suspect has knowledge on the case that someone would not have if totally left in the dark they have a better chance at being guilty. There is a 90-95% reliailty rate with this method, but still nothing that will hold up in court. The way people can pass these tests are either by telling the truth or by having to have complete control over the reactions of their body. This takes alot of skill something your adverage person would not have. They would need to be able to monitor their own blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin conductivity all at the same time to come up with a fake 'true' answer. SO in short, they have to control actions the body would normally do by itself if they told the truth. Thats very difficult to do, and something that probably could not be done in an hour in responce to Dr. Richardson's claim. It also not true that there is absolutly no scientific basis for polygraph testing either. Rather, there is no DIRECT scientific evidence, but certainly many, many, many consitancies. Scientists have not yet been able to prove 100% that the measurements are associated with lies, but admit startling coincidences. There is alot of evidence that does support the polygraph testing, but nothing fully conclusive. So its not total bogus. There is validity, just nothing absolute.

The show uses the polygraph test before the actual filming. The participant is asked 50+ questions and has no knowlege of the outcome of her bodyies signals in corespondence to the questions. They will then pick and choose the questions and know what their bodies reactions were. When actually on the show, they will compare the contestants on air answer with the results, and if they don't match, they are lying and sent home. The same can be done on the presidential candidates. Of course, I know that the Secret Service will probably make sure the questions are not slanderous, but I think the show will know not to do that.

On accuracy, the answers are yes or no. If the question is, WIll you raise taxes they will probably have to say yes. Of course every president has to raise taxes somehow, its just another vague lie they tell in speeches. But if its specific like 'Do you plan to raise the price of oil" their answer will be more reliable. I don't think the CIA, FBI, or SS has any jurisdiction to teach a candidates how to pass lie detector test as they have no loyalty towards them at this time. On a current president maybe, but on a possible president they cannot. No, here, it is the candidate only. If there is one that has the potential to pass it untruthfully, I think it would be McCain, but all the others are average enough to were they will probably show the sametraits regular liars have.

SO, we can accept politicians lie. We know they will not be truthful on many levels. What we don't know is on what levels those are. Some people are 1 issue voters, like abortion or the war. If they could find out the candidates real responces it could influence their feelings. People want to know the truth and this is how. Its important to know who you are voting for before you vote for them. We can no longer just take people's words for it when it comes to something as important as the election.

These people run our lives, and we can't allow them to be in office if we can't trust them. I find it highly unlikly any politiician will have the ability to pass a polygraph, and think it is more reliable than Dr. Richardson says. Perhaps they will give nothing 100% conclusive, but it is better proof than that persons word as it measure the word. ANy anti-lie methos, from sodium pentathol to polygraphs, should be explored now that they exist, and Moment of Truth would just be a way to make the results of those methods public.
iq_two

Con

2. I think a lot of people would vote for someone in their party no matter what, and I also think that if a lie detector test worked, it would expose bad things about all the candidates who took it. However, even if we accept your proposal that voters would change their candidate by watching it, the lie detector test would give the advantage to whichever candidate was best at fooling the lie detector- in other words, this test would help the most dishonest candidate. For example, you said you think the only current candidate that would be likely to know how to pass the test would be McCain. I don't know whether that's true or not, but say it is- the test would show that all other candidates were lying about, say, raising taxes. And even if the one candidate who could pass the test was lying, it wouldn't show it. So people would vote for that candidate, the dishonest one.

You say that you disagree with Dr. Richardson, but you don't give any statistics or expert testimony to show otherwise. You talk a lot about how polygraphs are reliable without giving any sources. If you want to see how polygraph questioning works and how easy it is to pass a lie detector test, go to this site: http://antipolygraph.org....

And as I said before, even if polygraphs were reliable, they would be useless in questioning candidates about what they would do once they were elected.

You say that we should experiment with any anti-lie methods. Yes, we should experiment with them. The result of such experiments will most likely be that they are not reliable. However, testing presidential candidates is not experimenting- it's using the test in a way that could affect the fate of a nation. We should NOT let the results of an election rest on an unreliable device.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
One thing not mentioned is that sometimes a politician's personal feelings or beliefs are not reflected in terms of their actions in politics. For example, George Bush can secretly love gay people for all we know. Maybe he himself is a flaming homo. However if you ask him how he feels about gay marriage, and he says that he's okay with it, that certainly doesn't mean that he will support it while he is in office.

Another good example is what's going on right now with the (former) Governor Spitzer case. Pro mentioned that the questions on the show would not be slanderous, however, as we have seen in the previous week, people don't want unscrupolous politicians in office. Gov. Spitzer was forced to resign mostly due to the fact that it was found out he was engaged in a prostitute ring. While the argument could be that he was kicked out because that type of behavior is illegal, well, the use of narcotics and even marijuana is illegal - would he have been kicked out of office if it turned up that he was a drug user? And if so, then that just proves that people would WANT to know slanderous things about whatever politician, because 1) People are nosey... hehe - jk - my real point is that for some reason people actually CARE...? About these things?

I dunno. I'm tired.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
since Rupert Murdoch owns Fox, I think this is a great idea... no way he'd pass up this chance for power by allowing the stupid questions through... :D.

But, no presidential candidate would sign up for it. Not past candidates, not current. They know they don't stack up :D
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
However if nobody grabs it and it's still here when I come back later... hmm...
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
This debate would be an easy win, but I'll oblige by your request and leave it up :)
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
"There' no one to blame except the voters who put the crummy president into office."

No president will be 100% liked by all of America. People will be unhappy with the president no matter who it is.

I find this debate very interesting and I would love to debate it...are you still planning on leaving it up?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I'll leave it up too. Though if I was really bored and I finished all my homework, i'd take the position of "Inefficiency". Think it'd fly.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
I'd appreciate if this could be left up for a night to just get some general opinions before actually debating it.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by keenan 9 years ago
keenan
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kmille11014 9 years ago
Kmille11014
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by iq_two 9 years ago
iq_two
FalseRealityiq_twoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03