The Debate Minus the Facts

Another interesting piece that probably wouldn't exist without the internet. This article on Slate includes the text from the debate, minus all of the facts presented by each candidate. Facts being defined as anything that can be checked. It is a new way of talking about the debate because the reader can see where statements were redacted as facts, and there aren't many of them. Accuracy of facts also didn't come in to play with this article. The media can now in many ways manipulate what went on to prove a point or just raise questions. I think quantifying information can have a big impact on how we process something that can be as cumbersome as a 90 minute debate on big issues.

The question of this article is whether facts impact how the audience received the debate. Do we care about the numbers and figures candidates bring up, or are we just interested in "the rhetoric that strings the facts together?" If I were to make a conclucion based on the evidence of this article, I would say we are interested in the rhetoric. Or at least the candidates think we are. But is that anything new?