Earlier this week, I made an outline of the Smith Sarwark debate. Now you get to hear some of my thoughts. You’re welcome. 🙂
First, debates can be very helpful, but they also go bad easily. I need them to be engaging to get anything out of them, so I say debates need to be important and fun and followable… enough for the intended audience anyway. Second, someone should walkaway introduced to the whole scope of the matter at hand. Walking away with just two obscure takes leaves too much to be desired.
On both accounts, this debate did pretty well. It was easy to follow, for the careful listener anyway. Some of it seemed lost on Sarwark, but meh. Also, it was not dry. Smith kept it fun. Sarwark made it a bit creepy,1 but fun and lively it was.
Interestingly, each debater fit his message. Smith, in regular clothes and speech, stood passionately for profound yet basic principles. Sarwark illustrated his points with sales, twice, and with his suit and subtly crafty rhetoric, he fit the part. Dial them up, and one can imagine Smith pounding his fist and yelling, “Give me liberty or give me death!” while Sarwark worries about the Tory-vote.
Smith spoke to (and in the spirit of) the best in civilization. Sarwark's appearance of sincerity just clashed with his wormtonguery and the stench of b.s. on his breath. Smith won the debate. However, the line of the night goes to Tom Woods. Per Smith's quote:
We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.
Tom Woods
1. For just one example, if Sarwark took the time to pander to the audience and pet their emotions with “You’re special,” one more time, I was going to get sick. Someone from the audience should have yelled, “Thanks mommy!” His general style was off-putting as well.
2. Sarwark’s rhetorical care, dodges, and ploys were collectively and repetitively called out as “lawyering”. Sarwark even attempted to punt the label back once.