The Debates: Cite? Fallacies?

[Jon_the_Geek]

Here at GD, we demand cites to back up arguments, and refuse to be swayed by fallacious arguments. So… let’s analyze the responses at the debates. I propose combing through the transcripts, giving each candidate two scores:
positive: evidence offered with cites (or enough info to verify)
negative: logical fallacies used

I’ll post 1 question/response block at a time for us to tear apart, beginning with the first question from the first debate:

@debates.org

LEHRER: Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry.

As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you, Senator Kerry. You have two minutes.

Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

KERRY: Yes, I do.

But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the president will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You’ve been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you. And we admire your pluck and perseverance.

I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.

And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe.

I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.

I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.

This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we’re now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.

I think that’s wrong, and I think we can do better.

I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.

We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections.

All of these, and especially homeland security, which we’ll talk about a little bit later.

LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a 90-second rebuttal.

BUSH: I, too, thank the University of Miami, and say our prayers are with the good people of this state, who’ve suffered a lot.

September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day, our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer.

We pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we’re after them.

We’ve upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist.

And the Taliban are no longer in power. Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.

In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.

And, as well, we’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.

[Jurph]

Quick point of order. One of the President’s talking points was a non sequitur (“You can’t lead if you say wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”) and he repeated it several times. Likewise, Sen. Kerry routinely made assertions (“I have a better plan to X”) that require the audience to buy a pig in a poke. Do either of these constructions get scored as multiple points off?

To clarify my question: do you score multiple occurrences of “You can’t lead if you have brown hair” as multiple negative points? Do you also score multiple occurrences of “I have a better plan (no further detail)” as multiple negatives?

[Evil_Captor]

@Jurph

Quick point of order. One of the President’s talking points was a non sequitur (“You can’t lead if you say wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”) and he repeated it several times. Likewise, Sen. Kerry routinely made assertions (“I have a better plan to X”) that require the audience to buy a pig in a poke. Do either of these constructions get scored as multiple points off?

To clarify my question: do you score multiple occurrences of “You can’t lead if you have brown hair” as multiple negative points? Do you also score multiple occurrences of “I have a better plan (no further detail)” as multiple negatives?

To be fair, Kerry gave a cite to his plans – he referenced his website, johnkerry.org or whatever, saying it gives detailed plans. And it does. Don’t know if citing a website would count in this instance.

[Jon_the_Geek]

@Jurph

To clarify my question: do you score multiple occurrences of “You can’t lead if you have brown hair” as multiple negative points? Do you also score multiple occurrences of “I have a better plan (no further detail)” as multiple negatives?

I say we count them once per “round”. So, if Bush makes the same non-sequitur 18 times in one response, that counts as once… but if he makes it in every block, he gets a negative each time.

Some more clarification on the rules:

• We have to be careful about scoring appeals to authority. If they’re proper appeals–such as to the words of a Secretary of State or former President about a foreign-affairs-related action, then those count as cited evidence for the positive column. If they’re fallacious (none spring to mind, but there may have been some–things like the words of a Secretary of State about, say, a scientific position), they count in the negative column.
• Let’s stick to only cited evidence for the positive column (with the words of someone with good authority counting as a cite); a lot of assertions were thrown out on both sides, but let’s only tally the ones with a cite for the positive.

I have to get some work done, but I’ll come back to analyze as soon as I can, if nobody beats me to it.

[NewHeart_Male]

MMMMMMmm… methinks I’m gonna enjoy the responses in this thread more than in the other one - should be interesting.

[RTFirefly]

@George W. Bush

We pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we’re after them.

I don’t know if we’re counting Zarqawi as al-Qaeda this week or not (IIRC, he’s a mixture of ally, rival, and fellow traveler, but he’s unquestionably an anti-American terrorist), but we didn’t pursue him in Kurd-controlled Iraq in the year before the war. The Army wanted to on three separate occasions, but the White House vetoed it each time, according to MSNBC.

We’ve upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist.

Oh, really? So, Afghanistan was the only nation in the world that was harboring terrorists?

And the Taliban are no longer in power. Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.

I don’t have a cite for this, but it’s been bandied about by others here that there aren’t that many eligible voters in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize.

I love the new Saddam-9/11 linkage: there was no functional connection, but after 9/11, we realized we had to deal with threats before we got attacked. (We didn’t realize that before 9/11? Jeez, we must’ve been dumb.)

OK then, was North Korea a threat on 9/12/2001? How about Iran? I agree, we are better off when we anticipate threats and defuse them before they come to fruition; I’m with him there. But the issue remains one of prioritizing threats. There was little evidence on 9/12/01, and even less in March of 2003, that Saddam represented anything like the threat to us or even to the stability of its region that North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or al-Qaeda represented. Saddam was down the list.

Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it.

That’s debatable. Which represented more of a threat to us and the region, Saddam as he was in March 2003, or the failed state Iraq is rapidly becoming?

We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

“Disrupting”? How have we “disrupted” Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran? (Well OK, we have done some modest saber-rattling at Iran, but with essentially all our combat strength tied down in Iraq, we don’t have much room to do more with Iraq than bomb it from the air.)

Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.

Libya has been trying to rejoin the community of civilized nations since before 9/11; Bush seems to have had little to do with it. And A.Q Khan hasn’t been punished in any meaningful way for his role in putting North Korea and Iran on the road to becoming nuclear powers.

And, as well, we’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror.

No, we’re giving lip service to a “strategy of freedom around the world.” It doesn’t trouble us that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Egypt or Jordan aren’t democracies - and GWB’s weak criticism of Putin’s power grab in Russia came several days after the fact, only when it was clear that the issue of his failing to speak out at Russia’s undemocratization was starting to become an issue even for many of his supporters.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

A Kerry nitpick:

@Kerry

we’re now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq

Actually, I believe we’re closer to 10% of the casualties; I believe that Iraqis and foreign-born insurgents constitute 90% of the casualties.

But I think we all knew what he meant: 90% of the casualties on our side.

Still, it gripes me.

Daniel

[duality72]

Brad DeLong seems to have a number of possibly good holes to punch in Bush’s arguments:

Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. [1. What Bush means is that 75% of known Al Qaeda leaders as of September 10, 2001 have been accounted for. But we know that Al Qaeda has new leaders--so this is simply false.]

Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election. [2. It's not a good thing when you have more registered voters than you have people of voting age in the country.]

In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. [3. Middle East leaders disagree, and say that the world is definitely not safer as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq.]

The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. [4. A.Q. Khan is not in jail. In what sense has he been "brought to justice"?]

That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. [5. But we now know that the inspections in Iraq were remarkably successful.]

LEHRER: What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. [6. But we don't--as we learned at Tora Bora.]

Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. [7. Once again, nobody but Bush believes that Al Qaeda has been scotched.] The killer -- the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.

What my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. [8. Grants of power do not give the grantee the right to be stupid in using the power.]

I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. [9. Bush has just said he would rather have his tax cuts for the rich than spend money on homeland security.]

And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 [Iraqis] trained now, [10. But we don't have 100,000 trained now.]

My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war.... What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? [11. President Kwasniewski says that he was taken for a ride by Bush with Bush's false claims about WMDs.]

My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. [12. That's not amazing: that's true. The entire strategy of the War on Terror is--or should be--to unite moderate Muslims with us against Al Qaeda. The attack on Iraq has made that next to impossible.]

There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. [13. Once again, Bush shouldn't be saying this. It isn't true.]

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, [14. Iraq, however, did not attack us.]

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, [15. After he says "disarm", Bush realizes he's made a mistake and shifts to "disclose".]

We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, [16. Once again, Bush shouldn't be saying this: he hasn't been working closely with France.]

I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. [17. That's not what Kerry said: he said nuclear proliferation--which Bush has not taken to be a highest priority problem.]

I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue with missile defenses. And we've got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly. [18. He shouldn't be saying this: the system he's about to deploy isn't tested. There's no reason to think it will work.]

[Jurph]

@Kerry

Yes, I do. But before I answer further, let me thank you
for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And
I know the President will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate.
You’ve been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go
out to you, and we admire your pluck and perseverance.
I can make America safer than President Bush has made us. And I believe
President Bush and I both love our country equally, but we just have a
different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe
America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are
leading strong alliances.
I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know
how to lead those alliances. This President has left them in shatters across
the globe.

I assert that none of the above claims may be proven – zero points.

And we’re now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq, and 90 percent
of the costs. I think that’s wrong, and I think we can do better.

The Brookings Institutions “Iraq Index” published 16 Sept 04 cites the following ratios:
1016 American lives lost vs. 127 non-American (non-Iraqi) lives lost. 1016 / 1143 = 88.8%, less than ninety. Strictly judged, this is false.

The same source cites 146,000 American troops in place out of 162,000 total troops in place. 146/162 = 86.4%, less than ninety. Strictly judged, this is false (but not relevant to Kerry’s claim).

I can’t find a cite for any country offering more than $5B (Japan) in assistance. If anyone can stack up more than $9B in additional assistance (to make 10% of $140B), I’ll cede this as false, but I seem to recall Japan’s donation being the largest by far. I got $140B – not $200B – from costofwar.com. Given their bias, I’ll accept $140B as a “high end” estimate. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but I’m inclined to score this as a point for Kerry.

I therefore judge “90 percent” claims as follows: “…of the cost” - one point; “…of the casualties / …of the troops” - minus one point. This instance is up one, down one. zero points.

I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be
able to fight the war on terror: by strengthening our military, strengthening
our intelligence; by going after the financing more authoritatively; by doing
what we need to do to rebuild the alliances; by reaching out to the Muslim
world, which the President has almost not done; and beginning to isolate the
radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

No verifiable facts. Hairs may be split over what is or is not “reaching out” but I’m inclined to score this as zero points.

I know I can do a better job in Iraq, where I have a plan to have a summit
with all of the allies, something this President has not yet achieved, not yet
been able to do to bring people to the table. We can do a better job of
training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves. And I know that we can do a
better job of preparing for elections. All of these, and especially homeland
security, which we’ll talk about a little bit later.

Largely free of substance. Total for Mr. Kerry: one point positive, one point negative.

@Bush

I, too, thank the University of Miami and say our prayers
are with the good people of this state who’ve suffered a lot.
September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since
that day our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country
safer. We’ve pursued Al Qaeda wherever Al Qaeda tries to hide; 75 percent of
known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know
we’re after them.

The 75% figure is tough to get behind. I have a Congressional Research Service report (Foreign Press Centers - United States Department of State) which states that the size of Al Qaeda cannot be known, nor can the proportion be accurately estimated. The definition of “leader” (and its distinction from “member”) is not stated, nor are the figures used to back it up. I count this as an appeal to authority since the President doubtless has received a briefing where some lower-level manager makes this claim and backs it up with classified information. We can’t see the info, so we can’t evaluate it true or false. Appeal to authority, but no way to judge its authenticity. I score no points.

We’ve upheld the doctrine that said, if you harbor a terrorist, you’re
equally as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban, no longer in power; 10
million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming
presidential election.

True; multiple sources agree. One point. This statement hides the ugly truth of spurious registration, but it is incumbent on Mr. Kerry to refute the assertion or let it stand.

In Iraq, we saw a threat and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now
sits in a prison cell;

True…

America and the world are safer for it.

… unverifiable. Do we score the premise or the conclusion? I score no points for the sentence as a whole.

We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate
weapons of mass destruction. Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has
been brought to justice.

Libya has disarmed, but apparently as a result of diplomacy rather than any disruption. A.Q. Khan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm) was proliferating nuclear secrets after the U.S. asked Pakistan to fire him from his sensitive position. Technically, we “disrupted” him after he proliferated. However, to state that his “network” has been “brought to justice” overstates the facts. Khan was arrested but no word yet on his sentencing, nor any word on his accomplices in the other countries (the receiving half of the network, and the possessors of the proliferated knowledge).

I score these as a true but unverifiable statement (premise - no score), a true conclusion unrelated to the premise (no score), and a false statement drawn from the premise (minus one point).

And, as well, we’re pursuing a strategy of – of
freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject
terror; free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people;
free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.

This gets more into political theory, but is unverifiable unless you want to make an appeal to history. I score the President at plus one, minus one as well. A zero-zero tie by my accounting, with Kerry’s positive point resting on slightly firmer ground than Bush’s, and with the penalties on each side being solid and tough to refute.

[Jurph]

Now that I consider it more carefully, the statement that “ten million people” have registered is technically false. Some number approximating eight million people have registered to cast ten million ballots. If I’m going to split the hair on 88% and 90%, then I have to give the President the same rigor: unless (at least) ten million distinct persons have registered, this statement is false. Most reports suggest that fewer than ten million persons registered, therefore, I’m adjusting my score to:

ROUND ONE
KERRY: -1/1
BUSH: -2/0

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Jurph, I take issue with your saying the 90% figure is false, when you base that off of a report 2 weeks old, and when the amount it’s off by is 1.2%. Do we know what the more current figures are?

Also, what degree of accuracy is necessary? If it’d turned out that 91.2% of casualties were American, would you also have considered it false? What if it were 89.8%?

It seems reasonable to me that in a debate, in order to avoid sounding pointyheaded (and I hate that that’s a goal, but it is), politicians are going to round numbers off. It seems very reasonable to me to round a percentage to the nearest 5%. If Bush had said there were 10 million registrations in Afghanistan, and the real number was 9,500,000, I wouldn’t begrudge him that difference.

Daniel

[Hamlet]

@Jurph

The 75% figure is tough to get behind. I have a Congressional Research Service report (Foreign Press Centers - United States Department of State) which states that the size of Al Qaeda cannot be known, nor can the proportion be accurately estimated. The definition of “leader” (and its distinction from “member”) is not stated, nor are the figures used to back it up. I count this as an appeal to authority since the President doubtless has received a briefing where some lower-level manager makes this claim and backs it up with classified information. We can’t see the info, so we can’t evaluate it true or false. Appeal to authority, but no way to judge its authenticity. I score no points.

I’d go with negative one, based on this statement from factcheck.org:

The President said twice that “75 percent” of al Qaeda leaders have been “brought to justice.” But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden’s network at the time of the September 11 attacks – not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted “conservative” intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

@Jurph

True; multiple sources agree. One point. This statement hides the ugly truth of spurious registration, but it is incumbent on Mr. Kerry to refute the assertion or let it stand.

Again from factcheck.org:

Bush said that 10 million people had registered to vote in the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, which he called a “phenomenal statistic.” But that’s a disputed figure. Human Rights Watch issued a report Sept. 29 citing “widespread multiple registration of voters.” It said the 10 million figure is probably inflated.

[John_Mace]

This site from the SJ Mercury News offers a few of the statements made and then gives some analysis as to whether they were correct or not.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Okay, Here are up-to-date figures

Total US military fatalities: 1059
Total Fatalities from allies: 138
Percentage fatalities from US: 88.47%

So, if we only count fatalities in the casualties figure, he’s off by a whopping 1.53%. Still not egregious, IMO.

What I don’t know is whether the wounded figures are substantially different. The same link gives a figure of 7,532 wounded US military, but I don’t see a figure for allied wounded on the cite.

Wounded certainly count among casualties; wouldn’t we have to account for the total wounded before judging the truth of Kerry’s assertion?

Daniel

[bup]

@Jurph

I got $140B – not $200B – from costofwar.com. Given their bias, I’ll accept $140B as a “high end” estimate.

Here’s factcheck’s analysis of $200 billion.

I may be biased (well, I am), but I think there’s no way the war will have cost less than $200 billion when all is said and done. One particularly infuriating part of Bush’ presidency is that they have consistently seen things too simply, and too simply solved (Mission Accomplished!).

[Jurph]

I’m certainly willing to cede the point to Kerry if wounded are included. My reasoning goes like this: with almost 9 times more Americans killed, we will get a more statistically valid distribution of dead and wounded (isn’t this typically around 5:1?). The fewer non-American dead will include one-shot kills like sniper actions, drive-by shootings, or even muggings, where there are very few wounded persons included per fatality. So the non-American casualties will be disproportionately composed of fatalities, and therefore by including injuries (and not just deaths) we almost certainly crack the 90% mark.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It looks as if Kerry was including, in figures for the war and for weaponry systems, the president’s desired expenditures, instead of actual expenditures. He shoulda said things like, “The president is expecting to spend over 200 billion dollars on this war, and that’ll only get us through October of next year,” or, “The president is proposing that we spend hundreds of milliions of dollars to build a nuclear warhead system that we can actually use in battle, at the same time as we try to persuade the world to stop nuclear proliferation.”

I agree that it’s inaccurate for him to substitute actual expenditures for projected or desired expenditures. His arguments would’ve been almost as strong if he’d been honest on this point–stronger, since they would’ve been true.

Daniel

[Jurph]

@bup

Here’s factcheck’s analysis of $200 billion.

I may be biased (well, I am), but I think there’s no way the war will have cost less than $200 billion when all is said and done. One particularly infuriating part of Bush’ presidency is that they have consistently seen things too simply, and too simply solved (Mission Accomplished!).

Kerry was not discussing a future point in time “when all is said and done” however – he said (or implied) that the $200B was what we had already spent, and that 90% was a current figure. You can no more take 90% of $200B than you can take 90% of some future casualty report. For example, we’ll almost certainly break 1,500 fatalities, but you can’t use that figure in your calculations until we actually break that mark.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Jurph

I’m certainly willing to cede the point to Kerry if wounded are included.

I just double-checked dictionary.com, and every war-related definition of “casualty” includes the wounded.

I propose one more rule on the scoring: if a candidate’s statement is ambiguous, and two or more meanings are both reasonable interpretations, we should score it according to the most favorable interpretation.

If I read correctly, this would up Kerry’s score on the opening statement to 1/1. Am I right?

Daniel

[Jurph]

I agree with the revised score for Kerry’s first 90/90 reference (“cost” and “casualties”) but caution us to keep an eye open for a change of phrasing. That puts the score as Kerry 2/0 .

As for rounding, I’d prefer to use the candidate’s exact words, and let “almost” stand in for 5%. If they use “almost” (or a similar word) and they’re off by 5%, I’ll cede the point, but if they assert 90% (or 10 million) I want them to have already met that goal or exceeded it. Obviously we should offer the most favorable interpretation (“at least” or “at most”) depending on their position.

How do we feel about Bush’s 75% figure? I keep seeing in wire reports that they’re measuring the 75% from an old list, so I’m more and more inclined to subtract points, but at the same time, I can’t really believe that new names aren’t being added all the time. When we hear about a new Al Qaeda figure, I’m sure he gets added to The List. I can’t really see how we can solidly disprove it, but I’m certainly not going to award points for it, either. I stand by no score for this assertion, leaving his score Bush 0/-2.

If Jon the Geek agrees, I move that we close the scoring on round one and get busy with round two. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover before the Veep Debate on Tuesday!!