@pluffASMR No

yeah im leaning no

Before the debate, I thought Walz was gonna win just because of the insane Trump positions Vance will have to defend, and the fact they are both, in their own way, decent public speakers.

After the first watch (while distracted) I was of the opinion Vance surprised me in handling his harder to defend positions and Walz stuttered/ paused a lot. Conveying their opinion clearly is crucial in determining a winner, but after the next few watches and the transcript came out, things became more complicated.

Walz, and mostly Vance, lied about many seemingly strong points they made. And since mods weren't allowed to fact check, it caused people to believe Vance ran away with the win. Some of Vance's best moments, imo, were ruined by using lies as supporting evidence. I also didn't care for his use of opinions as supporting examples, as they do nothing in support, except sound really good to the viewer who watches it once.

Walz had many highs and a few lows. He stuttered and had awkward pauses which definitely gave the first impression viewer a clear winner in Vance, but all resolutions will be determined using evidence in the video, and transcript. After watching the video again, with the transcript, you quickly realize that many of Walz's unclear or awkward moments were still very effective, and Vance's high points were sometimes because he told a lie.

Since this became more complicated (no fact checks until later) I simplified it by slowly going through all the dialogue (transcript+video), and filled out a debate rubric I made, for each topic, then averaged each category independently and added them up, then watched again to determine the winner.

here are the scores (i turned off my political bias when scoring):

will wait 2 hours to resolve unless someone makes a compelling enough argument for specific changes that would flip the results of the rubric

@pluffASMR This is impressive work! I don't think the process can possibly be as objective as the rubric makes it look, but I also don't think anyone could get any closer to that goal than this, in practice.

really appreciate this. thank you hyper.

@Hyperlincoln agreed. I don't think anyone can "turn off [their] political bias" entirely, but the attempt to do so is still laudable.

@MarkHamill thoughts? are there any instances that resolve this to YES?

(first one is mainly about kamala specifically) JDV: "What have Kamala Harris's policies actually led to? More energy production in China, more manufacturing overseas, more doing business in some of the dirtiest parts of the entire world. When I say that, I mean the amount of carbon emissions they're doing per unit of economic output. So if we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people. And unfortunately, Kamala Harris has done exactly the opposite."

(second one is kind of a general "you" like "anyone") JDV: "And the real issue is that if you're spending hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of American taxpayer money on solar panels that are made in China, number one, you're going to make the economy dirtier. We should be making more of those solar panels here in the United States of America."

(third one is definitely about walz but is it enough for "selling out"?) JDV: "Governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we'd get cheaper goods. They lied about that."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/

Read the full VP debate transcript from the Walz-Vance showdown

Read the full transcript of the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News between Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz.

going to resolve this NO in two hours unless someone convinces me otherwise citing evidence from the debate
@MarkHamill

@ZacParker this is wrong. JD Vance said “drill baby drill” which contains “beedrill” phonetically

@RaviParikh they also said “EV” (eevee) when talking about electric vehicles

it does sound like a Pokémon was said but I could not find the correct spelling for any in the transcript.

from comments below:

“so if "EV" or "unknown" is on the transcript for the moment of the debate in question that would be NO

if the transcript says "gloom" or "slowpoke" or any other Pokémon I believe this should resolve YES

I really appreciate you clarifying”

@pluffASMR Thanks for all your hard work running this market! Sending you some mana as a retroactive grant.

No problem, I enjoyed this one.

Thank you very much for the mana, I’ll use it for more market creation. I appreciate it a lot!

@pluffASMR Very well run market, excellent work! 💯 👍

no way Walz is considered the winner, literally choked 2 answers completely, Vance was way more articulate and discussed the issues instead of talking points and personal attacks like Walz. The bias is insane

@MattPen Vance looked more polished at different points. His debate skills are a slightly better than Walz. His camera presence training is clearly better (he barely moves his head or posture when speaking and turns to an almost perfect partial profile when looking at his opponent). Walz showed a little polish on a few of his answers but he was caught by surprise two times and had none of the camera training (showing us full profiles that made him look a little like Nixon and his balding head when he was writing down notes).

Apart from that, Walz came off as clearly more compassionate and sincere. Some of his answers to questions about the housing crisis and child care were actually good answers and not just good canned answers, with nuanced information that even seemed to impress his opponent. The civility that everyone is talking about seemed genuine and sincere from Walz at all points. On the Jan 6th denialism, Walz did the disappointed dad thing and won the closing, putting his foot down while still somehow remaining civil.

I'm not sure if you can say anyone won the full debate but it is clear that both of these men have skills and are clear assets to their tickets. How's my bias?

@becauseyoudo we must've watched a different debate

---

Polymarket has Vance winning 74-26

https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-win-the-vp-debate-according-to-polls?tid=1727851847686

after the third watch it is so split for me. so now i decided to watch a 4th time while considering a rubric like this and resolve in a day or two (winner takes all):

WALZ

organization/clarity

/10

use of supporting facts

/10

persuasiveness and rebuttals

/10

closing

/10

Poll Dominance

/10

Total

/50

VANCE

organization/clarity

/10

use of supporting facts

/10

persuasiveness and rebuttals

/10

closing

/10

Poll Dominance

/10

Total

/50


lmk any suggestions or your opinions or scores

@pluffASMR I think the fact that conservatives (even those who don't like Trump - important because the Trump folks will declare victory anyway of course) are comfortable declaring it a solid Vance win, while folks on blue team are generally complaining about Walz's performance, is telling. IMO the only reason the dominant media narrative isn't even more that Vance won than it is, is the folks writing those headlines generally want Kamala to win so they're leery of giving Vance too much credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/politics/who-won-debate-vance-walz.html

@MattP No. When you look closely, there was no clear winner. They both had nonsense answers to surprise questions. Vance making that nonsense look more fluid and palatable is not something I think should be awarded extra points. Once you remove any extra points for being able to bullshit better, Walz starts to look pretty good.

I don't really understand why anyone wouldn't want to discount the ability to generate noise when a major complaint from most voters, and more from Trump voters, is that politicians aren't sincere and aren't straight shooters. Walz is the straightest shooter to run on a presidential ticket in decades. Vance is a first class bullshitter and will make an excellent Presidential candidate at some point. Both looked very competent on stage last night.

@becauseyoudo let's temporarily accept the premise of your question - in that context, being good at competent bullshitery is absolutely something you get points for in politics. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. So even in your framing (in which Walz is a "straight shooter" - lol - and Vance is a bullshiter), you're setting up Vance as doing his job better last night (which is to convince and persuade).

I don't tend to accept that premise, though. Vance's running mate is a veritable fountain of bullshit, yes - so he ends up having to do a lot of covering for that and being more mendacious than most politicians while serving in that role - but if you just look at Vance and Walz comparatively (leaving their running mates aside), it's hard to say Walz looks any more honest than Vance. He's had his healthy share of lies, "misstatements", and other politician nonsense - and he doesn't even have the excuse of being on Trump's ticket.

I should also note that this shouldn't have to be said, but just in case - my contention (and the consensus of most media at this point, begrudging though it is) that Vance won the debate isn't the same as an endorsement of the candidate, his policies, or his agenda. It's just a recognition of the plain facts of the matter obvious to anyone who watched the debate, lol.

@MattP being a more competent bullshitter is the reward function Vance is following because of circumstance and personal preference. Being more personable and relatable is the reward function Walz is following. They both strive to be competent leaders and decision makers.

My personal preference and the stated personal preference of most voters is to elect someone that isn't going to lie to them so discounting the bullshitting seems reasonable to me. Does being a good bullshitter make for a better politician? Yes, if that person lacks all other skills of a good leader, bullshitting is an easy shortcut to getting people to trust you.

@becauseyoudo we're not arguing about who's a better person or a better leader here, but who was a better debater last night. Full stop.

But again - your premise is flawed because Walz lies all the time, fairly blatantly. He was even asked about one of em last night - saying he was in Tianamen Square during the massacre(?) - and his answer was "I'm a knucklehead". The world in which Walz is some sort of honest man is just a fantasyland. He's very much on the "bullshitter" side of the politician spectrum - he just gets a pass because he's running against Trump and most journalists have bought into the idea that their job is to help defeat Trump. shrug

@MattP I was hoping you were going to go with being a good bullshitter is an essential skill for anyone and not just a cover for personal shortcomings but instead you went with Walz bullshits badly and you can't win a debate without being a good bullshitter. I don't think we're going to agree here.

you went with Walz bullshits badly and you can't win a debate without being a good bullshitter

First point yes, second point no. I never made that claim - I'm just noting that what seems to be your main reason for saying Vance lost (that he lies) also applies to Walz, by any objective measure.

We aren't going to agree, though - I'll agree with you on that. :)

@pluffASMR I think it’s probably a wash.

Nate Silver puts it within the margin of error. Silver’s most salient point is that a normal republican opposition would have a much stronger case against this democratic ticket. Even if Vance is a strong debater, he was weakened by the candidate he had to defend. He tried and failed to make the tone of the debate about Harris and her policies, where Walz successfully reminded you that his opponent was representing Trump and his terrible record.

Walz did not steamroll Vance despite these advantages, because Vance is an objectively better debater. He’s younger, more agile, with better media training. I don’t think Vance moved the needle for trump, I think he improved his personal favorability.

There are no knockouts and no consensus. Polling is too close. I think there’s a better argument for Vance than Walz, but i think a moderator should call it a tie.

@persimmon HOWEVER I would like to clarify: the question is phrased “Walz wins the debate.” So, in the event of a tie, you should still determine the outcome of this question as a “no.”

i appreciate everyone's arguments very much. i got some sleep, now watching a 4th time, starting with every category at 0/10, awarding and retracting points throughout this watch. winner takes all.

specifically, here's what im looking for:

organization/clarity:

Evaluate how effectively the candidate structures their responses and presents their ideas. Look for a logical flow of arguments, clear articulation of points, and the ability to convey complex information in an understandable manner.

persuasiveness and rebuttals:

Examine the candidate's ability to persuade the audience through compelling arguments and rhetoric. Evaluate how effectively they address and counter their opponent's points, including their responsiveness and adaptability during exchanges.

use of supporting facts:

Assess the candidate's use of accurate and relevant data, statistics, and examples to back up their claims. Consider whether they effectively integrate evidence to strengthen their arguments and enhance credibility.

closing:

Consider the strength and impact of the candidate's closing statement. Look for a concise summary of key points, a compelling call to action, and the ability to leave a lasting impression on the audience.

Poll Dominance:

Evaluate the candidate's performance based on various polls and prediction markets (such as Manifold Markets) that measure debate outcomes. Consider how the candidate is perceived in terms of winning the debate, as reflected by real-time audience polls, post-debate surveys, and market predictions.

Total:

most points /50 = winner (tie resolves NO)