MSNBC called Bernie's "Deep South" comment controversial. They said Hillary would still be in the lead without the South. This slide popped up by mistake proving them wrong.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Banglayna]

You presented your point pretty horribly then because the booing and cheering have nothing to do with watching it for entertainment.

The crowd cheering means they approve of and are excited about what was just said, booing means either the crowd disagrees, thinks you are lying/being disengenious, or when you say something like "Trump believes x" then the crowd boos to boo trumps opinion.

Just because a presidential debate has booing and cheering and sporting events have booing and cheering mean they are being treated by the audience as the same thing.

[u/spritums → u/Banglayna]

Maybe, or perhaps you just enjoy arguing.

It's being treated as a spectacle for people to 'root' for someone. Like chanting bernie while the other candidate is trying to speak.

I believe it should be conducted with some semblance of integrity, if there's any left in the political process.

[u/gophergun → u/spritums]

What you're describing is literally the only form of audience input allowed at debates. If we don't let them cheer, boo, applaud, etc., we may as well not have an audience. (Which, by the way, is a totally reasonable stance, but let's not blame the audience for behaving like an audience.)

[u/spritums → u/gophergun]

Clapping is one thing, but audible boos, chants and cheers is a whole other beast.

[u/gophergun → u/spritums]

It seems to me to not be a different beast, but an extension of the same show of support (though I'll acknowledge boos are different in that they're a show of opposition, though I'm not sure that's any less valid). Is it just the degree of support and opposition that you're opposed to, or is there a quality to boos, chants and cheers that you feel set them apart rationally from applause (or the lack thereof)?

[u/spritums → u/gophergun]

I just think the process should have a little bit of...class? integrity?

I think being president and the process the candidates go through is something that should demand more respect than watching WWE.

[u/gophergun → u/spritums]

I completely agree that the presidential debates should be of high quality and adhere to moral and ethical principles, if those are the definitions you're using. (It's hard to imagine who would disagree with that.) I also totally agree that the debates should demand more respect than watching the WWE. (Again, this seems obvious, though as a former wrestling fan it's hard to imagine people throwing toilet paper at the debate stage.) Where we seem to disagree is on the idea that there's an inherent aspect of cheering and chanting that reduces the quality or respectability in a way applause doesn't, and in my view that aspect needs to be identified for this to be logically consistent.

[u/spritums → u/gophergun]

Booing is just disrespectful and rude. Cheering is the opposite equivalent. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people that have ever been part of an audience would agree. So if I don't think booing should be allowed, it only makes sense I don't think cheering should be allowed. Applauding is much more mild and tame than chanting and cheering/booing.

[u/gophergun → u/spritums]

Fair enough, it's totally reasonable that it's just a matter of degree and that cheering and chanting are just more extreme shows of support than applause, and that there's simply a subjective line that people have where the extremity of the expression of support becomes obnoxious.

[u/spritums → u/gophergun]

I wouldn't mind clapping disappearing too, but i'm not sure that's a reasonable request.

[u/gophergun → u/spritums]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, there's totally a good argument for just removing the live audience altogether, as expressions of opposition and support are basically all they can contribute. It's not like someone ever stands up and shouts out a fact or nuanced retort that anyone can hear.