The Vice Presidential Debate yesterday was cold, calm, and “civil.” It seemed to include everything we thought was lacking in the First Presidential debate (with the exception of a good moderator). Yet it seemed so profoundly disappointing. Did we learn anything? Did we move forward in our understanding of the candidates? I think most of us would say no to these questions.
The problem isn’t civility or facts. The problem is in defining what debate is. Everyone thinks they know what real debate is, and nobody has examined the reasons why they believe what they do.
The heart of the problem is that we tend to believe that debate is natural. It’s something humans do when we have mutually exclusive, competitive options on what to do. There is some truth to this perspective; recent research from Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber and others is confirming via cognitive psychology what American rhetorical theorists such as Douglas Ehninger, Wayne Brockriede, and James Brenham were writing about debate in the 1970s and 1980s. But this isn’t quite enough.
Eating is natural, but eating well is a practiced, learned behavior. Speaking comes to children naturally, over time, but speaking meaningfully and recognizing how to say something well must be practiced and studied. Debate is the same way. We might learn to argue at a young age – any parent can confirm this fact – but to debate is to offer a refined performance for a particular purpose. It has to be thought out, prepared, and carefully made for an audience.
Most people model good debate after school debates, or intercollegiate debates. These debates are not structured with the principles of good debate in mind. Very much like a school exam, they are structured to teach and measure recall and performance of various educational metrics. For example, the popular high school competitive format of Public Forum debate exists to fill a need for an activity that gives students practice and support of skills such as speaking with organization, research, comparing information, and the like. It is not modeled with fidelity to debate, but more modeled for what works in teaching. Lincoln-Douglas debate is also similarly modeled, created in order to provide students educational opportunity. Both serve their purpose, but do not have much support for being a national model, or a universal model of debate.
There is no universal model of debating, except that there should be agreement between the participants on time limits, topic, and the judge. The Commission on Presidential Debates has failed to establish any of these fundamentals. Their function is to create a “newsworthy” event that the media can cover without having to provide equal time to all political candidates. The Commission, set up and run by two-party partisans, does it’s job well in reducing our scope of choices to the two major parties.
If we wanted to model a better debate, what would it look like?
From my point of view as a professor who teaches this and studies it, the major change must be in the topic. Choose one topic, and let’s have alternating speeches on it, 5 minutes each. The moderator can go to Twitter and pull the questions from the viewers. The moderator need not be a journalist, as journalistic questions are not debate questions. Journalists are trying to get at the truth and the facts; debates are trying to explore whether we really know or understand the issue. A good debate is one that surprises us and makes us think not that we might be wrong, but that we need to think about the issue more.
For the vice presidential debate, how about the topic: “The Trump Administration has served America well.” Mike Pence can defend this motion, and Kamala Harris can argue against it. The debate will move between various examples, but instead of having someone who writes for an 8th grade reading level in USA Today, let the candidates choose what examples to take up and run with. I would predict Pence to flee from discussion of the pandemic, and Harris to speak only about that issue. But near the end, both will be focused on two major points.
Allowing them to speak longer and deeper about one question gives voters information. This information allows voters to construct more complicated ideas about motive, values, and potential of the candidates to engage in policymaking, as well as identifying what matters and what doesn’t. Rushing along through 10 topics doesn’t do anything for voters, but it sure does create some great sound bites for the media.
The model of debate should suit the reason why you are debating. The high school or college model is chosen because it helps people practice research, evaluating evidence, and speaking in an orderly, meaningful way. The CPD model is chosen because it reduces our scope of thought and choice, allowing the 2 party system to thrive by filling the rhetorical space with whatever they want. A third model might actually do what we need: Give us more information about these candidates by watching them develop, alter, and engage reasons on an issue over 90 minutes.