A GOP Presidential debate is being held on December 6, 2023. Debates in previous cycles have been labeled as uncivilized or unbecoming of America. For the resolution of this market, a review will be conducted of all articles posted about the debate on December 7 on CNN.com, excluding "Live Updates during the debate" feeds.
This market resolves to NO if there are more articles that criticize multiple candidates, moderators, audience members, the debate hall, or others involved with producing the debate for uncivil behavior than there are articles praising these people for managing a substantive debate that helped audience members decide who to vote for.
Otherwise, if praise is the majority opinion, if there is equal weight on both sides, or if the debate is so conventional that nobody comments at all about its civility, this market resolves to YES.
The spirit of the question is targeted at the civility of the debate itself. Therefore, excessive personal attacks by a single candidate, which cause controversy over that candidate's actions and which don't degrade the conversation in general, are insufficient to label the debate in its entirety as "uncivilized."
The market resolves to N/A if the debate is cancelled or if CNN doesn't publish a single article about the debate on December 7.
PREVIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS QUESTION:
1,000
3.00RESOLUTION: There was nothing published of relevance since the comment below stating that few comments on civility had been published.
Additionally, while @GCS does point out one characterization by an opinion writer that the debate was filled by personal attacks, the writer did not call the debate uncivilized in general, and there were other comments that stated that the debate generally stuck to the issues outside those attacks. Furthermore, the personal attacks were not engaged in by every candidate; Christie and Haley in particular refused to engage and tried to tone them down.
Therefore, the resolution is YES.
“We’re marching toward fascism under Biden, Jack Smith has subpoenaed every last Retweet that someone has issued from Donald Trump in the year 2020, the only person more fascist than the Biden regime now, is Nikki Haley who thinks the government should identify every one of those individuals with an ID.”
@MickBransfield While not relevant to market resolution, and while this statement mischaracterizes what she said, I do agree with the general gist of her view that comments on social media platforms should be required to have a real name publicly attached to them.
You can see how reddit differs from X and Manifold in this regard. reddit actually has a policy against publicizing names, and has turned into a cesspool of personal attacks, "downvotes," and biased moderators.
At Manifold, which requires registration with a Google account, and X, which requires payment by some, moderation is significantly better and people are held to account for what they say.
@SteveSokolowski Manifold and X still allow you to be anonymous for the most part. A proposal of refusing to allow anonymous posting at all seems much more extreme
@SteveSokolowski One presidential candidate called another a fascist during a candidate debate. That is by definition uncivil. I agree this doesn't factor in the criteria you're using, but that criteria may not be the best measurement because uncivil behavior by politicians is no longer newsworthy.
I disagree with @Weezing that the debate was civilized. The debate had some of the worst personal attacks I've ever seen, probably outdoing even the debate about Trump's hands with Rubio in 2016.
Fortunately for him, only CNN's opinion, not mine, matters. And, so far, there have been no articles posted that actually criticize the civility of the debate. All the opinion articles are about how TRUMP won.
If someone wants to contradict this statement by providing evidence, feel free to do so. Otherwise, should no criticism of the debate's civility be posted before the close date, this market will end up at YES.
I agree. It's probably not enough to resolve NO but there was this quote describing the debate as wild and vicious in the opinion article.
"The wild, final Republican presidential debate of 2023, filled with vicious, personal attacks by the candidates, demonstrated once again that the nomination is Donald Trump’s to lose because all but one of his challengers are too frightened to take him on directly."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/opinions/fourth-republican-debate-analysis/index.html
So far it seems like the debate was relatively civilized. All articles I saw say that while they were some personal attacks, that they were able to have substative debate, which tackled important issues. There were no specific mentions that the debate overall was uncivil or out of control like for the second debate.
This article says it had more substance than previous debates: Analysis: This GOP debate had more substance than the last 3 showdowns — but will it change the race?
Main article says (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/takeaways-republican-debate/index.html)
"Amid the smallest debate field so far and facing mounting pressure with Iowa’s caucuses less than six weeks away, the candidates were able to showcase their policy beliefs and explore major differences. There were also a series of memorable personal shots."