The Commission on Presidential Debates released a statement about yesterday’s Presidential debate, seemingly unaware that they are the reason the debate was so poor. Here’s the text:
The Commission on Presidential Debates sponsors televised debates for the benefit of the American electorate. Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues. The CPD will be carefully considering the changes that it will adopt and will announce those measures shortly. The Commission is grateful to Chris Wallace for the professionalism and skill he brought to last night’s debate and intends to ensure that additional tools to maintain order are in place for the remaining debates.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, September 30, 2020
There are so many concerns with this statement it’s hard to know where to begin. First, I would say that the statement ignores that the media, and most debate educators in the country, are calling on the CPD to cancel all the remaining debates. It feels to me that these events are going to be the rhetorical equivalent of injecting bleach into your body to protect you from the disease of tyranny.
The statement does reveal a lot about how the CPD thinks about things. They called Chris Wallace “professional,” when he spent the majority of the time of the debate arguing with the President. Why didn’t he just stay quiet? Why didn’t he call for Trump’s sound to be cut? Why didn’t he do anything other than join those two up there in talking over one another?
Secondly, they believe the debates are there to provide “an orderly discussion of the issues.” If you want discussion, have a discussion. It’s just that easy.
Debate is a triggering word for people. I have been teaching debate in some form or fashion since 1998. Whenever I use this term around those outside of what I do, it prompts a visceral reaction. Debates are seen as negative by most people, and best avoided. The reason why is that debates are perceived as contests of aggressive dominance. So if you can’t avoid them, you have to act this way to survive.
What are the issues? A debate should be about one issue, and one side should suggest change around or about that issue, and the other side should oppose it. A great example of this was the first question: Should a Supreme Court Justice be appointed now, or after the election? The entire debate should be about a question like this, not multiple issues. A discussion is where multiple issues can be handled, and handled well, because there is no structural requirement to decide between mutually exclusive options. A discussion would help the electorate gather information and reasons, as well as assign motives to the two candidates. Discussion can help make an electoral decision in this way.
Debates with a rigid timer that cuts the camera and cuts the microphone when the time expires are essential.
Debates that focus on a single topic that one candidate supports and one does not are essential.
Debates that have an official judge selected by the CPD to evaluate the quality of the argumentation of each candidate is an essential need.
A rubric, or some sort of form to assess the quality of debate performance by each candidate must be developed and distributed by the CPD.
If these things don’t happen, no further statement will save the legitimacy of this organization which has been on questionable ground since it’s very first sponsored debates, in 1988.
But it hasn’t done anything to alter these events and has not addressed the critics of their events in any way. Why would they do anything different now?