CLOSE

Rockin' Rebuttals: 3 Non-Presidential Debates

The Convention Confrontation: Gore Vidal vs. William F. Buckley, Jr. (1968)

The participants: By the late sixties, Gore Vidal was already a well-known and respected author and liberal political commentator; from the right, he was perfectly matched by conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of the National Review.

The venue: The year was 1968, and the times, according to numerous credible sources, were a-changin'. At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, as protesters and police clashed in the streets, ABC News organized a series of battles for the small screen that came to reflect the deep divisions emerging in America at the time. Amidst nationwide political tumult, the ideological foes had a captive audience of millions as they played out a vitriolic back-and-forth of ad hominem attacks unlike anything else that had been seen or heard on TV before.

The issues: With eight debates on ABC in total, four each at the Republican and Democratic Conventions, any political issue was fair game. However, the big issue on everyone's mind was, of course, the war in Vietnam. With over 500,000 troops fighting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, the U.S. had a lot of chips on the table and nothing resembling a public consensus on how the cards should be played. It was in regards to the war that we get the debates' most memorable moments:

Buckley alleged some of the antiwar protesters outside were "pro-Nazi," and had "egg[ed] on other people to shoot American soldiers and American marines." Scratching his head, Vidal snapped back, "As far as I'm concerned the only sort of pro-Crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself." As you might expect, Buckley didn't take this well, calling Vidal a "queer" and threatening, "I'll sock you in the goddamned face and you'll stay plastered." As far as I know, even Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann have never (publicly) threatened each other with physical violence.

The outcome: Gore's and Buckley's attitudes towards one another never really improved, but no one in their right mind expected them to. As the two men waged their war of words, nastiness (and lawsuits) became predictably familiar. After Buckley's passing in February of 2008, Vidal excoriated the press' coverage of the death and told his deceased enemy to "RIP"¦in hell."

The Evolution Agitation: Thomas Henry Huxley vs. Samuel Wilberforce (1860)

huxley-gorillaThe participants: Thomas Huxley (left), grandfather of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley, was a self-educated agnostic and a close associate of Charles Darwin; Samuel Wilberforce was a bishop in the Church of England and a renowned public speaker who had openly condemned Charles Darwin's recently-published On the Origin of Species.

The venue: The Oxford University Museum of Natural History was the host of a meeting convened by the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

The issues: Hard as it may be to believe, evolution was hotly opposed before there was even a Kansas, much less a Kansas School Board. Indeed, Huxley himself was an opponent of the idea until Darwin made an effort, shortly before his most famous work was published, to convince his friend that natural selection was right. During the reading of a paper that cited Darwin's book, the well-known biologist Richard Owen incited a debate over the validity of the evolutionists' claims. Huxley stood up to respond, and before long an informal debate was scheduled. After a reportedly boring lecture by NYU professor John Draper, Huxley and Wilberforce were among those called upon to elaborate on their differing views.

wilberforceUnlike the aforementioned Kansas School Board and other proponents of "intelligent design," Wilberforce allegedly backed up his skepticism with scientific arguments. (I say "allegedly" because there's no known verbatim record of the exchange "“ just accounts in post-debate letters from those present.) However, science or no science, Wilberforce is remembered for just one rhetorical point he made. According to American Scientist magazine, the bishop asked Huxley whether "it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey."

Huxley's alleged reply? "If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." Eat your heart out, Inherit the Wind.

The outcome: After Wilberforce and Huxley had finished this now-famous exchange, the captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, Admiral Robert FitzRoy, stood to denounce his former companion's book on religious grounds. He was followed by the botanist Joseph Hooker, who continued the arguments Huxley had begun on behalf of Darwin. After this, reports say that everyone peacefully and cheerfully went off to dinner together. Even though the debate ended without any clear resolution of who "won," history has declared Huxley and Hooker the winners.

The NAFTA Knockdown: Al Gore vs. Ross Perot (1993)

larry king logoThe participants: Al Gore, not yet in possession of an Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize, was stuck in the dead-end job of Vice-President of the United States; Ross Perot had received 18.9 percent of the popular vote in the most recent presidential election, making him the most successful third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt.

The venue: The debate took up an episode of Larry King Live, the same show where Perot had declared his intention to run for the presidency a year and a half earlier. Someone has uploaded the debate in eight parts to YouTube (embedding is disabled), and it's more than a little eerie seeing how different all three men looked 16 years ago.

king gore perotThe issues: There was just one issue to debate "“ the North American Free Trade Agreement, a.k.a. NAFTA. Gore was in favor, while Perot was against. King preceded the debate by pointing out that, technically, it wasn't a debate, with no set time limits or other formal restrictions. Things got a bit volatile at times, especially after Gore insinuated that embracing Perot's ideas would be like asking for another Great Depression. With a new president in town and a record-size audience for a cable program, this was the perfect time for an even-handed debate about a serious policy issue. Shockingly, however, issues unrelated to the ever-so-thrilling nuts-and-bolts of trade policy are thought to have decided the end result.

The outcome: Perot lost. Political analysts at the time concluded that Gore was a more effective and controlled debater, and that Perot's temperament hindered his case. Despite what was considered a massive audience for cable, many of the newspapers covering the debate pointed out that it was for the benefit of only a few people: the 30 or so Congressmen unsure about the free trade legislation. NAFTA passed in the House of Representatives, 234-200, and in January 1, 1994 the agreement went into effect. However, Perot could claim one small victory from the evening: he had the most memorable line of the night. The debate is thought to have taken the phrase "giant sucking sound," which Perot coined during his '92 run for the presidency to refer to what people would hear coming from Mexico post-NAFTA, and cemented it into the lexicon.

The Thrilla in Manila: Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

Just kidding.

nextArticle.image_alt|e
Netflix/Facebook
arrow
entertainment
8 Things We Know About Stranger Things Season 3
Netflix/Facebook
Netflix/Facebook

[Warning: There are lots of Stranger Things season two spoilers ahead.]

Stranger Things season two is in the books, and like we all hoped, it turned out to be a worthy follow-up to an addictive debut season. Now, though, we’re left with plenty of questions, mysteries, and theories to chew on as the wait for a third season begins. But for everything we don’t know about what the next year of Stranger Things will bring us (such as an actual release date), there are more than enough things we do know to keep those fan theories coming well into 2018. While the show hasn't been officially greenlit for a third season by Netflix yet, new details have already begun to trickle out. Here’s everything we know about Stranger Things season three so far.

1. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER TIME JUMP.

The third season of Stranger Things won’t pick up right where the second one left off. Like the show experienced between the first two seasons, there will be a time jump between seasons two and three as well. The reason is simple: the child actors are all growing up, and instead of having the kids look noticeably older without explanation for year three, the Duffer Brothers told The Hollywood Reporter:

“Our kids are aging. We can only write and produce the show so fast. They're going to be almost a year older by the time we start shooting season three. It provides certain challenges. You can't start right after season two ended. It forces you to do a time jump. But what I like is that it makes you evolve the show. It forces the show to evolve and change, because the kids are changing.”

2. THE IDEA IS TO BE SMALLER IN SCALE.

If the series’s second season was about expanding the Stranger Things mythology, the third season won't go bigger just for the sake of it, with the brothers even going so far as to say that it will be a more intimate story.

“It’s not necessarily going to be bigger in scale,” Matt Duffer said in an interview with IndieWire. “What I am really excited about is giving these characters an interesting journey to go on.”

Ross Duffer did stress, though, that as of early November, season three is basically “… Matt and me working with some writers and figuring out where it’s going to go.”

3. THE MIND FLAYER WILL BE BACK.

The second season ended on a bit of a foreboding note when it was revealed that the Mind Flayer was still in the Upside Down and was seen looming over the Hawkins school as the winter dance was going on. Though we know there will be a time jump at the start of next season, it’s clear that the monster will still have a big presence on the show.

Executive producer Dan Cohen told TV Guide: "There were other ways we could have ended beyond that, but I think that was a very strong, lyrical ending, and it really lets us decide to focus where we ultimately are going to want to go as we dive into Season 3."

What does the Mind Flayer’s presence mean for the new crop of episodes? Well, there will be plenty of fan theories to ponder between now and the season three premiere (whenever that may be).

4. PLENTY OF LEFTOVER SEASON TWO STORYLINES WILL BE IN SEASON THREE.

The Duffer Brothers had a lot of material for the latest season of the show—probably a bit too much. Talking to Vulture, Matt Duffer detailed a few details and plot points that had to be pushed to season three:

"Billy was supposed to have a bigger role. We ended up having so many characters it ended up, in a way, more teed up for season three than anything. There was a whole teen supernatural story line that just got booted because it was just too cluttered, you know? A lot of that’s just getting kicked into season three."

The good news is that he also told the site that this wealth of cut material could make the writing process for the third season much quicker.

5. THERE WILL BE MORE ERICA.

Stranger Things already had a roster of fan-favorite characters heading into season two, but newcomer Erica, Lucas’s little sister, may have overshadowed them all. Played by 11-year-old Priah Ferguson, Erica is equal parts expressive, snarky, and charismatic. And the Duffer Brothers couldn’t agree more, saying that there will be much more Erica next season.

“There will definitely be more Erica in Season 3,” Ross Duffer told Yahoo!. “That is the fun thing about the show—you discover stuff as you’re filming. We were able to integrate more of her in, but not as much you want because the story [was] already going. ‘We got to use more Erica’—that was one of the first things we said in the writers’ room.”

“I thought she’s very GIF-able, if that’s a word,” Matt Duffer added. “She was great.”

6. EXPECT KALI TO RETURN.

The season two episode “The Lost Sister” was a bit of an outlier for the series. It’s a standalone episode that focuses solely on the character Eleven, leaving the central plot and main cast of Hawkins behind. As well-received as Stranger Things season two was, this episode was a near-unanimous miss among fans and critics.

The episode did, however, introduce us to the character of Kali (Linnea Berthelsen), who has the ability to manipulate people’s minds with illusions she creates. Despite the reaction, the Duffers felt the episode was vital to Eleven’s development, and that Kali won’t be forgotten moving forward.

“It feels weird to me that we wouldn’t solve [Kali’s] storyline. I would say chances are very high she comes back,” Matt Duffer said at the Vulture Festival.

7. OTHER "NUMBERS" MIGHT SHOW UP.

We're already well acquainted with Eleven, and season two introduced us to Eight (a.k.a. Kali), and executive producer Shawn Levy heavily hinted to E! that there are probably more Hawkins Laboratory experiments on the horizon.

"I think we've clearly implied there are other numbers, and I can't imagine that the world will only ever know Eleven and Eight," Levy said.

8. THERE MIGHT NOT BE MANY SEASONS LEFT.

Don’t be in too much of a rush to find out everything about the next season of Stranger Things; there might not be many more left. The Duffer Brothers have said in the past that the plan is to do four seasons and end it. However, Levy gave fans a glimmer of hope that things may go on a little while longer—just by a bit, though.

“Hearts were heard breaking in Netflix headquarters when the Brothers made four seasons sound like an official end, and I was suddenly getting phone calls from our actors’ agents,” Levy told Entertainment Weekly. “The truth is we’re definitely going four seasons and there’s very much the possibility of a fifth. Beyond that, it becomes I think very unlikely.”

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
Why Do Fruitcakes Last So Long?
iStock
iStock

Fruitcake is a shelf-stable food unlike any other. One Ohio family has kept the same fruitcake uneaten (except for periodic taste tests) since it was baked in 1878. In Antarctica, a century-old fruitcake discovered in artifacts left by explorer Robert Falcon Scott’s 1910 expedition remains “almost edible,” according to the researchers who found it. So what is it that makes fruitcake so freakishly hardy?

It comes down to the ingredients. Fruitcake is notoriously dense. Unlike almost any other cake, it’s packed chock-full of already-preserved foods, like dried and candied nuts and fruit. All those dry ingredients don’t give microorganisms enough moisture to reproduce, as Ben Chapman, a food safety specialist at North Carolina State University, explained in 2014. That keeps bacteria from developing on the cake.

Oh, and the booze helps. A good fruitcake involves plenty of alcohol to help it stay shelf-stable for years on end. Immediately after a fruitcake cools, most bakers will wrap it in a cheesecloth soaked in liquor and store it in an airtight container. This keeps mold and yeast from developing on the surface. It also keeps the cake deliciously moist.

In fact, fruitcakes aren’t just capable of surviving unspoiled for months on end; some people contend they’re better that way. Fruitcake fans swear by the aging process, letting their cakes sit for months or even years at a stretch. Like what happens to a wine with age, this allows the tannins in the fruit to mellow, according to the Wisconsin bakery Swiss Colony, which has been selling fruitcakes since the 1960s. As it ages, it becomes even more flavorful, bringing out complex notes that a young fruitcake (or wine) lacks.

If you want your fruitcake to age gracefully, you’ll have to give it a little more hooch every once in a while. If you’re keeping it on the counter in advance of a holiday feast a few weeks away, the King Arthur Flour Company recommends unwrapping it and brushing it with whatever alcohol you’ve chosen (brandy and rum are popular choices) every few days. This is called “feeding” the cake, and should happen every week or so.

The aging process is built into our traditions around fruitcakes. In Great Britain, one wedding tradition calls for the bride and groom to save the top tier of a three-tier fruitcake to eat until the christening of the couple’s first child—presumably at least a year later, if not more.

Though true fruitcake aficionados argue over exactly how long you should be marinating your fruitcake in the fridge, The Spruce says that “it's generally recommended that soaked fruitcake should be consumed within two years.” Which isn't to say that the cake couldn’t last longer, as our century-old Antarctic fruitcake proves. Honestly, it would probably taste OK if you let it sit in brandy for a few days.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios