You Call That a Debate?!

Following up on my previous post, regarding presidential debates:

I hate to disillusion you, but they’re not really debates. At least, they’re not what those of us who were on a debate team in high school know as debates.

In formal debate, there is a resolution that proposes a change to the status quo, for example: “Resolved, that the United States should employ all employable U.S. citizens living in poverty.” A two-person affirmative team argues in favor of that resolution, while a two-person negative team defends the status quo. The first affirmative speaker states the resolution, and offers a plan to implement it, supported by evidence. The first negative speaker then speaks in opposition to the affirmative team’s plan, again with evidence. The second affirmative and second negative follow in that order, with further speeches supporting their respective positions. Each speaker then makes one rebuttal speech. A judge (usually a debate coach from a neutral school) then decides who wins.

When I was debating, in the 1970s, a new innovation had been added. There were periods when members of each team were allowed to cross-examine members of the opposing team. I’m not sure whether that has been continued in subsequent years.

I would like to see that format adapted for presidential debates. Each debate could be structured around an issue on which the candidates disagree. Obama could, for example, take the affirmative side regarding setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. McCain could then argue the opposing position. That would, it seems to me, be more enlightening than the traditional presidential “debate” format, which is essentially nothing more than a joint press conference. The town-hall style debates of recent years are a variation on that theme, but not substantively different along the lines of what I’m discussing here. They still involve the candidates answering (or not) a series of questions.

To maintain the structure of two-person affirmative and negative teams, the running-mates could be included, but I’m not sure that would add much to the usefulness of the debates.

I don’t think that presidential candidates want to set out their differences in such stark terms. They need to establish “product differentiation”, in the same way advertisers do, when selling cars, beer, etc. But that’s accomplished in more subtle ways, such as setting moods and manipulating feelings. For an early look at this mode of campaigning, see the film entitled The Candidate.

And, speaking of Hollywood, formal debate bears little resemblance to what was portrayed in a more-recent film, The Great Debaters. If the Wiley College debate team had really strung together stanzas of emotional political rhetoric, however eloquent, and tried to pass that off as debate, the judges would have been unimpressed.